On the heels of last week's news that we're backing al Qaeda-linked terrorists operating in Iran, Kevin Drum flags a CNN story that the US military is providing protection for Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)--yet another terrorist organization (according to the State Department, anyway).
The name rang a bell--'Mujahedeen-e-Khalq' isn't something one easily forgets--so I looked to see where I had seen it before. Not surprisingly, they're one of the players that just keeps turning up whenever Iraq and/or Iran are involved.
Human Rights Watch reported on their abuses in 2005. Short version: they torture and kill members who criticize them or try to leave the organization.
In January 2006, though, Voice of America reported on the possibility of using them as leverage against Iran.
When an attack in March 20006 killed 22 Iranian officials, the Iranian government attributed it to the MEK. A few weeks later, RawStory reported that the U.S. was training 'former' MEK members to cause mayhem in Iran.
But they've been useful in other ways as well. See, for example, this bit of alarmism, from December 2005:
More disquieting information was brought to Washington in recent days by a member of the Iranian opposition group, Mujaheddin Khalq, whose information on Iran’s nuclear progress obtained by clandestine means has consistently checked out since its reporting began in August 2003.According to Scott Ritter, MEK was consistently used as a conduit for dubious Israeli intelligence supporting the case for war with Iran.
All of this is since the Iraq war. Even before the war, though, the MEK had support from wingnuts in Congress:
...the MEK has been championed for years by leading members of Congress who, like its spokesman, have described it as a legitimate resistance movement opposing a tyrannical government run by religious fanatics. As recently as four years ago, more than 200 members of Congress signed statements endorsing the National Council’s cause (including prominent Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Missouri GOP Sen. Kit Bond.)Which might explain why the administration didn't use them to press the argument that Hussein was supporting terrorism. The punchline, of course, is that this doesn't stop wingnuts from arguing the point retroactively.
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq: noble opposition to the mullahocracy, bargaining chip, allies against the Axis of Evil, proof of Saddam's links to terrorism. Seems like these are some extraordinarily versatile terrorists. The Administration must be so happy to have them around.
Update: More on the MEK here (hat tip: Steve M, in comments).
|