David Ignatus writes in today's WaPo Lost Chances in Iran a piece that discloses yet another amazing NeoCon adventure in the making, this time in Iran.
Post invasion, the US and its partners in crime had bagged about 4,000 members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, which I last mentioned with something less than admiration in part 4, which contains a link to an OpEd piece in the the NY TImes by Ali Safavi, who cheerfully mentions Maryam Rajavi (Mujahedin-e Khalq) as a bell weather for the popularity of Western-initiated regime change in Tehran. Interested readers should read this. Negociations, described in Ignatus' piece, resulted in a pledge by Tehran to
grant amnesty to most of the 4,000 Mujaheddin-e Khalq captives, to forgo the death penalty for about 65 leaders who would be tried in Iranian courts and to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to supervise the transfer.So far, so good, unless one has drunk the Mullahs-always-lie koolaide served at a surprisingly large number of wholesale and retail political koolaide outlets in the United States, one of the glow-in-the-dark subtexts of the waiting-like-coyote US-Iran War.
What would the US get in return for this largess to a civilized Iran?
Over 500 al Qaeda cadres, bagged by Iran in the Winter of 2001-2002, and another group of senior al Qaeda cadres, up to the General Staff equivalents in that organization, who were bagged by Iran in the Spring of 2002. Not thousands of indiscriminately arrested Iraqis, including children, but a significant fraction of the al Qaeda general combatant, field command, and head-quarters staff officer populations.
So why did our Idiot King prefer to keep 4,000 Mujahedin-e Khalq cadres in some jug or another in Iraq, rather than trade up for better quality cadres who actually want to blow up Washington, rather than Tehran? Because Cheney's gang of idiots think they're going to overthrow the Mullahs and the Majlis with the Mujahedin-e Khalq.
For those that don't follow Iranian politics, it is difficult to characterize just how unlikely it is that the
Mujahedin-e Khalq can affect "regime change" in Tehran. For those that do follow American politics, giving blanket amnesty to al Qaeda cadres who choose to be disarmed and taken into custody in Iran, and not invoking what amounts to an extradition agreement to interrogate senior members of the al Qaeda movement, should contribute to "regime change" in Washington.
If as you suggest, the Mujaheddin-E Khalq has no chance to bring regime change in Iran, could one please explain why for the past twenty-five years it has been the number one preoccupation of the clerical regime in Iran?
It is not a coincidence that in public or private talks with the West, or any other country, the mullahs demand a crackdown on the MEK.
This is because the mullahs know, better than anyone else, who the real threat to their survival is.
Far more important than MEK's tanks and other weapons, of which they had plenty, is their modern, democratic interpretation of Islam which undermines everything the mullahs' fundamentalist Islam stands for.
This is what the clerics are afraid of: An alternative vision of Islam that is now attracting tens of thousands of all place in Iraq.
One other point: To suggest that the U.S. should engage in human trade with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is not only inhumane, but detrimental to America's championing of democracy and human rights.
If there are any idiots, they are those who have turned into the blond-hair, blue-eyed mouthpieces of the troglodyte clerics.
Ali Safavi
Posted by: Ali Safavi at July 12, 2004 01:27 AMIsn't commenting on a blog rather down-market for someone who can get an OpEd piece on Iran's last election cycle in the Times, when real journalists from Yas-e Nou and Sharq and ... can't? Of course, their journals were shut down, and they don't do Washington meet-n-greets with Richard Perle. Jeepers, you even got to play talking heads on CNN, and you're a player in the Iran-gonna-get-Nukes game. Even The Nation published your Khalq-is-the-only-way letter, but they do have their ups and downs.
At points in time you've styled as "porte-parole officieux des Moudjahidines du peuple", and "member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance (NCR), and so on. Now its just the absurdly modest "small business" run out of a post office box in Alexandria???
Sic transit gloria dude.
This is kind of interesting:
Ali Safavi (CRD #1958071, Registered Representative, McLean, Virginia) was barred from association with any NASD member in any capacity. The sanction was based on findings that Safavi forged documents and converted customer funds totaling $215,133 for his own use. The findings also stated that Safavi changed the addresses of public customers without their permission or knowledge. On at least one occasion, he changed their addresses to his own residential address. In addition, Safavi failed to respond to NASD requests for information. (NASD Case #C07990060)
Any connection or just a coincidence?
The Bush regime holds 3,400 MEK staff at Camp Ashraf, and more elsewhere. The Khatami/Khamenei regime (7th Majlis) holds around 600 AQ staff at various venues. US NeoCons and both MEK and AQ policy advocates, all agree that the parties should not swap inventories. Time to write some letters.
I'll stick with this: http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm
Stuff from home I can fix when its wrong.
Posted by: Eric at July 12, 2004 10:35 AMLooking at my log files, you first read wampum on February 17th, the day I mentioned your piece in the NYT, published that day or the previous day, updating my own post of the 14th during the run-up to the Iranian elections. This is followed by desultory bookmark updating on 10 and 11 April, which you may not have even been aware of, then a full blown 15 minute read-a-thon early in the morning (1:15 to 1:32am) on July 12th. I hope you had a snack to go along with the warm milk.
I don't think I've ever googled for something I've written, then squirrled off down the Google-Trail to inflict my wit on anyone who wrote a bad review. I don't think I know anyone so ... vain or infantile.
Posted by: Eric at July 12, 2004 02:30 PM