Bush Should Embrace MEK in Battling Iran
By Professor Daniel M. Zucker
Global Politician, NCRI Iran News, February 6, 2006
The threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran grows every day as the antagonistic regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene and his appointed president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, continues in its relentless pursuit of nuclear capabilities. Iran's claim that it seeks to use nuclear energy for peaceful production of electricity has been proven a lie by the announcement of Russia that none of Iran's atomic sites hold any of the necessary ancillary equipment needed for producing electricity. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that Iran is busy producing long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. When one recalls Iran's twenty-seven year history of calling for the destruction of this country and of the State of Israel, reasonable prudence would council extreme caution against labeling the Iranian threat "empty boasting or mere rhetoric".
The regime's recent decision to break the seals on its nuclear facilities at Natanz demonstrates its utter contempt for world opinion as well as its unilateral decision to forge ahead, come what may. Negotiation, far from being a method of settling disputes is seen by the regime as a methodology with which to buy time to complete its nuclear plans.
The seriousness of the situation has finally dawned on our allies and some in the United States. Appeasement is finally being recognized as a dismal failure: Iran now has a government that is hell bent on acquiring both nuclear technology and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which when combined will pose a very serious threat to every nation on this globe. The current Iranian regime has become the single most repressive to its own citizenry and the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.
Given the aforementioned facts, the world is beginning to realize that the current regime must be changed or somehow "de-fanged". Proponents of the latter suggest a military strike by this country or Israel or both, but no one has indicated how to do so with any reasonable chance for success, given the fact that the Iranians have learned well the lessons from Osirak 1981, and created deeply buried research facilities all over the country in dozens of sites, most of which remain secret. Those that support the concept of regime change to date remain vague as to how such a change is to be accomplished. We seem to be at a loss of ideas as to how to deal with an enemy that is fighting us in an ideological war even more than in a military conflict.
It is time to realize that the Iranian regime has been at war with the United States for the entirety of its twenty-seven years of existence and that its adherents have actually been fighting our way of life for over four decades. The supporters of the regime have been at war with western civilization for at least that long and have been spewing out disinformation for over three decades. They have done their job very well, causing us to doubt the motives and ideologies of their principal opponents. Instead of supporting the strongest opposition group, we have "bought" the regime's lies and hobbled those who have been genuine freedom fighters.
The U.S. allowed disinformation provided by both the late shah's secret police (SAVAK) and the current regime's intelligence agency (MOIS/VEVAK) to cloud our judgment, causing the highest levels of our government to ignore the advice and evidence recently gathered by our own intelligence services as to the nature of the principal Iranian opposition group. As a result, instead of assisting the Iranian people to achieve freedom from the current repressive regime, we have allowed the regime to continue in power and to acquire the means to dominate the region and create havoc to western civilization.
There is a well-known aphorism in the Middle-East that says: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". While that aphorism may not be true in every case, we should learn from it that those which our enemies fear are those who can cause them the most damage. The Islamist regime of Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fear the Mojahedin e-Khalq (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran because these two organizations are committed to ending fundamentalist Islamic rule in Iran and bringing a secular democracy in its place. And these two organizations are led by devout Moslems who are women!
The leaders of these organizations have pledged to support a free market economy, to maintain cordial relations with all their neighbors in the region, to eschew the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and even to turn the leaders of the current regime over to the international court at the Hague for trial rather than to try them within Iran for their many crimes against humanity.
It is necessary to open a dialogue (in secret, if necessary) to see where the interests of these Iranian resistance groups converge with that of the United States. If enough diligence is given to this project, an amazingly quick and painless (to American lives) solution to our Iranian dilemma may surface.
No other policy has worked to date; it's time to listen carefully to the Iranian people. They, the people, not a variety of vested interests, will tell you whom to trust to get the job done.
The Iranian people know that the fundamentalist ayatollah regime must be fought by Islamic anti-fundamentalists. The Iranian people will tell that the MeK and NCRI are the anti-fundamentalists who are needed for this task. The Iranian people will ask you to take these two organizations off of the FTO list in order that they can lead the overthrow of the current Islamofacist regime in Tehran and replace it with a secular democracy. And that, if I'm not mistaken, is America's goal for Iran and the other nations of the region.
Professor Daniel M. Zucker is Chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East.