Revise terror list; erase two key groups
NCRI – The Atlanta Journal Constitution carried the following article by Raymond Tanter, professor of political science at Georgetown University, on Iran and its main opposition:
In a race against time before Iran acquires the Bomb, a dance of diplomats quickens for a diplomatic solution — a U. N. Security Council resolution demanding Iran cease enriching uranium gas as a part of its efforts to perfect a complete nuclear fuel cycle. Were Iran to master enrichment, the regime would be but a screwdriver’s turn away from nuclear weapons status.
Into the diplomatic mix comes a strange letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.
After days of speculation about the contents of the letter, it turns out to pour only scorn and humiliation against the United States. A careful reading of this letter suggests that it offers no proposals and reflects an Iranian intent to play for time in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons at any cost. The letter, however, reflects a puzzle and a series of questions that need to be answered.
Tehran’s actions analyzed
The puzzle is that as Iran moves closer to confrontation with the West and the U.N. Security Council, rather than seeking to avoid a clash, it seems the leadership in Tehran is begging for a fight.
What makes Tehran tick?
Consider the regime’s public statements and actions since 1979.
In my examination of more than 2,400 such statements and actions, I found that the nature of the regime in Tehran is Islamo-fascist, and this character makes a diplomatic solution extremely difficult to achieve. Islamo-fascism combines Islamist (radical) ideology with totalitarian government and appeals for popular support through scapegoating and oppressing minorities.
If an Islamo-fascist regime that is also the world’s top state sponsor of terror were to obtain the world’s most destructive weapons, it would be a catastrophe.
Since obtaining a nuclear bomb is crucial in providing Iran with regional hegemony and a means to realize its goal to establish global Islamic rule, it leaves little hope that diplomacy can persuade Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, end its state sponsorship of terrorism, or stop disrupting the process of democratization in Iraq.
Hence, the diplomatic option stalls, while planning for military action proceeds at a rapid pace. Indeed, behind the diplomatic stage, military planners accelerate target selection, including air defense systems and nuclear sites, if diplomacy fails.
Empower opposition
Meanwhile, a third option of regime change is barely making its way on to the table and lags too far behind the other two options. While Iran’s nuclear program is in development, the international community has a narrow window of time to explore a regime change option so that the United States is not left with only a choice between military action and doing nothing to prevent a radical Islamist Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Only regime change in Tehran can ensure that extremist Iranian clerics do not wind up with the Bomb. And the best way to achieve regime change is for the United States government to empower the Iranian opposition.
Empowerment requires removal of the main Iranian opposition groups from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list maintained by the U.S. State Department.
Extensive research by the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington think tank I co-founded and head, reveals that the Mujahedeen-e Khalq and the National Council of Resistance of Iran are not terrorist groups, and it is in the national interest of the United States to remove them from the list.
The MEK and NCRI are feared by the Tehran regime more than any groups, according to research of the Iran Policy Committee. The IPC finds that state-run Iranian media assail the MEK and mention it 230 percent more than all other opposition groups combined.
Strategic disarmament
The clerical dictators in Iran rightfully should fear the MEK. The MEK has vast support both inside and outside of Iran. It stands for democratization, freedom of religion, and is a shining example of civil society — protecting minority rights and treating women and men equally. The MEK has been the main source of intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites, exposing Iran’s decades-long deception by revealing once-hidden major nuclear sites in Iran.
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration placed the MEK on the terrorist list in 1997 — in a failed attempt to curry favor with the regime in Iran.
The MEK’s terrorist designation means that regime change is moving forward on half-throttle. The designation limits MEK’s ability to collect intelligence on regime nuclear sites and terrorist networks, shuts down MEK broadcasting to Iran (ironically, the State Department requests $75 million for such broadcasting) and ties up the resources of the group in court proceedings around the world to fight terrorist designation, distracting it from mobilizing Iranians to counter the Iranian regime domestically and abroad.
Delisting the Mujahedeen-e Khalq and the National Council of Resistance of Iran would slow down the nuclear clock by empowering the most significant intelligence asset on Iranian nuclear programs. More important, delisting is the first step to democratic regime change in Iran — which is the only option that solves the fundamental problem of the Islamo-fascist nature of the regime.
* Raymond Tanter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, is author of "Rogue Regimes." He served on the National Security Council staff during the Reagan-Bush administrations. His article was published on May 14.
