" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

An End to Impunity for MEK Boosters?

rendell-mek.jpg

In a controversial 6-3 ruling on Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the executive’s right under the USA PATRIOT Act to prosecute individuals or groups deemed to have provided “material support” to any organization classified by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization—including for nonviolent advocacy that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment, if the accused can be shown to have worked in concert with or at the behest of a proscribed organization.

 

In practice, notes Glenn Greenwald, this has amounted to a wave of prosecutions against young Muslim men for making Internet postings critical of U.S. foreign policy or in praise of alleged anti-American terrorists. It has also frustrated activists working to help terrorist-designated organizations in Turkey and Sri Lanka lodge international human rights complaints as a means of redressing their grievances nonviolently.

 

But the feds may be ready to add a higher-profile name to the list in former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, an avid (and highly compensated) advocate for the Muhajedin-e Khalq (MEK). Rendell recently disclosed that the U.S. Treasury Department was investigating his speaking agency for payments he received on behalf of the group. Rendell insists that he spoke his own views and received no money or input from MEK’s leaders, although he does not deny receiving large payments from supportive organizations.

 

U.S.-based apologists for MEK, an exiled Iranian group that fiercely opposes the country’s clerical regime and has for many years been on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, had previously received a pass on prosecutions since Holder, even as far more marginal figures were prosecuted for much lower-profile advocacy of other causes.

 

Many hawkish U.S. pundits and pressure groups have embraced the group as Iran’s “legitimate opposition” and urged the State Department to remove MEK from its list of terrorist organizations. Groups like Raymond Tanter’s Iran Policy Committee exist solely for this purpose, but they are hardly alone. MEK and an apparently well-heeled community of supporters have shelled out considerable sums to enlist the support of scores of prominent Washington figures, including Rendell, former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former CIA Directors Porter Goss and James Woolsey, former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and a host of others.

 

A Christian Science Monitor report from 2010 quoted a State Department official describing how MEK representatives would approach recently retired Washington politicos to solicit their backing: “Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.” All this high-profile support for an apparently active Iranian terrorist group inevitably raised questions about why human rights activists and lonesome Internet pontificators should suffer the wrath of the U.S. government while well-heeled politicos were appearing with MEK officials and accepting large sums to advocate for the group with apparent impunity.

 

MEK has aroused considerable antipathy in Iran for its often violent opposition to the country’s regime, including serving on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq war. Indeed, much to the chagrin of its U.S. backers, MEK has been disavowed by Iran’s opposition Green Movement. In Iraq, where the cultish group maintains an embattled encampment outside Baghdad, the organization is widely despised for its complicity in Saddam Hussein’s massacres of Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds.

 

Prior to Iran’s Islamic revolution, MEK was an active participant in a violent campaign against the shah’s rule, during which time the group killed several Americans considered close to the regime. More recently, although MEK claims to have disavowed terrorism, U.S. officials have linked the group to Israeli efforts to sabotage and attack Iranian nuclear facilities, killing several Iranian scientists in the process.

 

Shilling for the MEK is apparently seen by Washington insiders as a low-risk and lucrative way to push for regime change in Iran, particularly when linked to the separate but often conflated issue of the human rights situation at the group’s Ashraf encampment in Iraq. Whatever the result of Rendell’s investigation (which is admittedly curious for its isolation), and whatever the merits of the Holder ruling or MEK’s status itself, future political retirees might think twice before doubling down on a terrorist group with few friends in either Iran or Iraq. Surely there are less legally troublesome opportunities in less bloody enterprises.

 

–Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


Michael Flynn–a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who fears Muslims, wants war with Iran, is regarded as “unhinged” by military colleagues, and likes to cozy up to Vladimir Putin–was selected to be National Security Advisor in the Trump White House.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, is a militant organization that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Donald Trump calls Mitt Romney a “choke artist.” Romney calls Trump a threat to “a safe and prosperous future.” But the two are reportedly discussing the possibility of making Romney secretary of state. While he is arguably a safer choice then John Bolton or Rudolf Giuliani, Romney nevertheless has supported aggressive U.S. overseas intervention and sought advice from “pro-Israel” hardliners who would like nothing more than to see the Iran nuclear agreement fail.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is one the Senate’s more ardent supporters of militaristic U.S. foreign policies.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, is known first and foremost as an Iran hawk.


Donald Trump’s national security adviser has expressed contradictory opinions about the former Soviet Union, making it difficult to assess what policies the next White House administration may pursue in the region.


Trump: “Well, I’ll be honest with you, I probably do because look at the job they’ve done. OK, look at the job they’ve done. They haven’t done the job.”


Trump’s deputy national security advisor Kathleen McFarland has a history of making wildly conspiratorial claims about China leveraging its holdings of U.S. debt to demand the elimination of Fourth of July celebrations and casually joking about nuclear winter as a solution to global warming.


Thus far, signs indicate that Donald Trump will continue to ensure that the United States plays the dominant role in policing the world.


The Iran deal is beneficial to Israeli security. Without an Iranian nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have no incentive to obtain nuclear weapons, thus preventing a domino scenario. The deal also closed off the chapter of pre-emption strikes scenarios on Iran’s military targets and reduced the risks for a new and long regional war. All of this could be threatened by the Trump administration.


People are attaining positions of power under Trump not because of perspicacity and temperament but because they were not sufficiently outraged during the campaign to exile themselves from Trumpland.


RightWeb
share