Mujahedin Machine vs. Iranian-Americans

MEK wants to silence independent voices opposing their pro-war agenda


Mujahedin Machine vs. Iranian-Americans
by Trita Parsi

Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has been launching relentless attacks against the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The immediate reason is the Iranian-American campaign spearheaded by NIAC to keep the MEK on the U.S.'s terrorist list. NIAC and others have launched this campaign because delisting the MEK would unleash a major force for a U.S.-Iran war, undermine the peaceful pro-democracy movement in Iran while empowering anti-democratic hardliners, and put the free voices of the Iranian-American community under threat.

The MEK's attacks are not new. The MEK and neo-conservative elements supporting them have for years been orchestrating attacks against prominent Iranian American individuals and institutions who do not subscribe to their views. The targets have included not just me and NIAC, but also individuals like Ramin Jahanbeglou, Vali Nasr, and Shirin Ebadi. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has detailed how the MEK accuses any and all of its detractors of being agents of the Islamic Republic.

NIAC poses a threat to the MEK in many ways - because we give the Iranian-American community a voice in Washington that opposes war, opposes indiscriminate sanctions and supports human rights and indigenous democratization in Iran.

The MEK has a radically different agenda, and like some of its neoconservative counterparts, wants to silence independent voices opposing their pro-war agenda.

The MEK and these neo-conservatives sought hard to hide the true source and reasons for the attacks against prominent Iranian Americans and NIAC. The MEK knows very well how despised they are in the Iranian-American community. More often than not, their attack dogs pretend to be Monarchists or of some other denomination. Few, if any, admit their ties to the MEK. And these neo-conservatives know that the attacks will appear more credible if they have an Iranian face.

But recently, the MEK's desperation has shone through. Now, they no longer pretend to be disconnected from their campaigns against other Iranian Americans. Their attacks are posted on their own websites, and the attackers openly declare their dedication and loyalty to the MEK.

In this new desperation, they have also revealed their larger agenda. In a recent article, the MEK juxtaposed NIAC's current campaign to educate the public about the ramifications of delisting the MEK from terror list against an analysis I wrote in 2007 describing the likely consequences of the Bush administration's plan to include the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) on that same list.

The purpose of this comparison is to support the baseless claims by the MEK and its network of supporters that NIAC supports the regime in Iran.

The comparison falls flat. The designation would have had no economic impact on the IRGC, which was already exhaustively sanctioned by the United States. Instead, the designation was intended to advance a cause for war before the Bush administration's term ended. Indeed, the entire issue seemed ripped straight out of the Iraq war playbook. This is why several leading U.S. policymakers opposed the measure, including the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (led by now Vice-President Joseph Biden and Republican Senator Richard Lugar).

Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the strongest advocates for an Iran war in the Senate, later introduced the idea in legislative form and added language that explicitly gave a green light to conducting military action against Iran. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment stated the following:

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

The call for the "use of all instruments" including military instruments is what constituted a green light for war. In reality, the amendment had less to do with listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization than supporting military action against Iran before Bush's term came to an end.

The amendment caused a storm in the Senate - and even the Democratic primary debates - because it was rightly seen as an effort to start a war with Iran. Opposition from anti-war groups and Lieberman's colleagues in the eventually saw the above paragraph deleted from the amendment.

To suggest that my analysis, or Senator Biden and others' opposition to this move, was favorable to the IRGC is preposterous. Indeed, NIAC has been a key supporter of precision sanctions targeting the IRGC and leaders of the Islamic Republic. These targeted sanctions hit the elements in the Islamic Republic responsible for crafting policy and for the human rights abuses, while sparing innocent civilians and allowing the nascent opposition movement room to grow and build their power.

And herein lies the difference between NIAC's approach and the tactics of the MEK and these neo-conservatives. Though they pretend to target the IRGC, their policies in reality pave the way for a war that would see hundreds of thousands dead. NIAC and the Iranian-American community as a whole, on the other hand, puts the well being of the peoples of the America and Iran at the center. We have consistently opposed war, and instead pursued policies that would target the IRGC and the leaders of the Islamic Republic without hurting the Iranian people or risking a war that would be disastrous for both countries.

The questions people should ask themselves is why the MEK and these neo-conservatives consistently support policies that on the surface appear to target the clerical regime, but in reality drive the US and Iran towards a military confrontation.

Our ability to give the Iranian-American community an opportunity to be heard in Washington DC is a threat both to the agenda of the MEK and that of these neo-conservatives. Therefore, the attacks against independent voices in the Iranian-American community and NIAC will continue. But as the community comes to understand the agenda of the MEK, it will no longer buy their conspiracy theories.

First published in

Trita Parsi is president of the National Iraian American Council (NIAC).


Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi
Jahanshah Javid

Welcome to Washington!

by Jahanshah Javid on

Yes, the Mojahedin have allied themselves with the most rabid right-wingers in every capital from Washington to Tel Aviv. They would love to see war/military confrontation with the Islamic Republic. Their supporters' accusations against NIAC are unfounded and malicious.

However, none of these justify keeping the Mojahedin on the terrorist list if they are no longer engaged in terrorism. Engaging in dirty politics is not terrorism. Welcome to Washington!

No matter how unpopular the Mojahedin are among Iranians in Iran and abroad, no matter how radical their ideology or hawkish their policies, they still have the right to openly operate within the law, just as NIAC does.

What NIAC has failed to take into account or clearly address is the unpopularity of the Islamic Republic itself, its tyranny against Iranians, its confrontational foreign policy, its unwillingness to reach ANY KIND of compromise over its nuclear policy. Condemning human rights violations is not enough! NIAC must be equally pro-democracy as it is anti-war.

To treat the regime in Iran as a legitimate entity that is a victim of bullying by the U.S. and other western countries no longer flies. It's not impossible to be anti-war or against foreign intervention AND wholeheartedly supporting Iranians in their fight for democracy.

That's why the Mojahedin are gaining ground in Washington. Because they are unabashedly against the clerical regime in Iran. That's what American politicians want to hear. That's what IRANIAN-AMERICANS want to hear. If NIAC drags its feet on this, it will not only lose ground in Washington, but also among its constituents.



by iamfine on

I am glad that finally Dr. Parsi was able to respond to folks like Fred that are trying so hard to humiliate the NIAC and accusing that it is collaboration with the IRI. If NIAC is against sanction, it is because of the economic hardship to the Iranian people which they will be impacted the most. Let us be united and collaborate with the NIAC, which I am sure we all will benefit from it in long run.

Mohammad Alireza

Delisting? More like deprogramming.

by Mohammad Alireza on

It does matter not what Iranians think about delisting because the American regime will make its decision purely on the basis of its own interests, and those interests do not coincide with the interests of Iranians.

You only have to look at those "influential" Americans that have been recruited to lobby for delisting and you will see they are all the same people that lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. (See first article below.)

Wake up people, this has nothing to do with us -- meaning Iranians -- it's about oil, power, and the control of a region that contains 65% if the planets' oil and gas resources.

If you have not read the two articles below about the MEK you may want to do so because they are real eye openers.




Come clean first

by Fred on

It is very simple, if the lifetime president of the NIAC lobby does not have anything to hide, he should:

1- Answer his critics

2- Stop cozy relationship with various high officials of the Islamist Rapist Republic

3- Stop justifying all his and his lobby’s actions as a reaction to “warmongers”

4- Put to rest the allegation about his working and receiving compensation from various US government agencies.

5-The Syrian and Libyan freedom fighters are all for total boycott of oil against their tyrannical regimes. The lifetime president of NIAC lobby has to explain why his lobby is strongly opposed to oil sanctions against the tyrants in Tehran. 

BTW, that justification for opposing the terrorist designation for the Revolutionary Guards does not pass the laugh test.