Comments on: Who Is Hassan Daioleslam?

By: hass

hass — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:32:37 +0000

John McCain specifically entered material into the Congressional Record to warn fellow lawmakers to stay clear of the MEK lobbyists. See that material, including an FBI report and a COngressional Research Service report, here:

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/11/the-mko-mek-pmoi-facts.html

Also, the Village VOice did a great expose on the MEK at its supporters:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-12-04/news/with-friends-like-these/

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:54:15 +0000

The last two comments miss my point. I don’t deny that U.S. policy towards Iran is vital. I just don’t think MEK is a particularly important part of the story. The American people will not fall behind an Iran policy – be it bellicose or pro-engagement – as a result of anything to do with MEK. Trying to “expose” the neocons and their ilk by revealing their involvement with MEK goes right over the head of the average citizen. And the Obama people don’t need any of us to educate them about MEK; they aren’t babes in the woods. If you want to put a roadblock on the road to war, you need to talk about the effects a war would have on America. That’s how to mobilize the citizenry; this sort of inside baseball is just parlor intellectual stuff.

What we really need to worry about is how much backbone Obama has. He came into office with the possibility of becoming a true popular leader in both domestic and foreign affairs. Instead he’s been a compromiser; a low-key kind of guy. He doesn’t want to look like an “angry black man” I suppose. What he fails to realize is that he can never placate those who are opposed to him. He’s letting himself get pushed around – by the generals on Afghanistan, for example. If he’s not careful he’ll be irrelevant in a couple of years. I’m beginning to wonder why he wanted to become president. If he isn’t going burn some political capital to affect real change, then he’s either a coward or a fool (for the record, I don’t think he’s a fool). In the crisis (or rather, crises) facing the country, a Lincoln, or an FDR, or a Reagan is needed, not a calculating pantywaist who wants to offend no one.

By: Paul Sheldon Foote

Paul Sheldon Foote — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:39:59 +0000

The Iranian Communist MEK (MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Rajavi Cult, or Pol Pot of Iran) terrorists are used by the American government to perform terrorist activities and to help other terrorist organizations, such as Jundallah. In September 2002, the White House published a background paper for President George W. Bush’s remarks at the United Nations. That background paper listed two pretexts for the Iraq War: (1) weapons of mass destruction (2) Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorists. Of the three terrorist organizations listed in the background paper, only the MEK was a major one. In 2003, American and coalition forces attacked Camp Ashraf, Iraq, killing some of the MEK. The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) arranged for the protection and use of these terrorists.

By: framingthemessage

framingthemessage — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:12:52 +0000

Of course there is relevance here and if it were not, why would such enormous force stay behind MEK’s message. Before the invasion of Iraq, few Americans had heard of Ahmad Chalabi but that did not prevent him and his friends in neocon movement from affecting the ordinary lives of Iraqis and Americans. Our present_moment_knowledge is not the sole basis for judging the importance of a topic. Many focus on Iran as the most challenging subject of US foreign policy. If that is the case, the groups who want to direct the policies are having a profound impact on Iran and US -and by extension the larger world. There are no accidents in politics and this is another example of how we should follow the message of the ruling class and its PR line to track the eventual target.

By: nanuk

nanuk — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:18:24 +0000

i think the subject is important. the road to war always begins with a demonization of the target country and its people. parsi and cohen of the times amongst others who authoritatively humanize the citizens threaten this goal and diminish the public appetite for war. it is important to undermine the crude effort at smearing parsi and other voices of reason.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:15:16 +0000

Jon Harrison, knowing MEK and what they do is crucial to Obama’s Iran strategy. Just like the neocons, the MEK does not want rapprochement with Iran, just like the neocons. They have recently been in bed together to form a strategy to counter any moderate voices in washington vis-a-vis Iran.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:36:20 +0000

Those are fair comments, I admit. I just tend to think there are more important issues, or aspects of this particular issue, that the talent here (and Mr. Luban is a very able guy) could be focusing on.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:29:26 +0000

Mr. Harrison
I agree that 99.8% of Americans have no clue about MEK but I think it is a good idea to disclose the group and its sympathizers so the next time one sees one of them on Fox News (as an Iran expert), they know who they really are and what the connection is.

By: Mike Fontane

Mike Fontane — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:21:12 +0000

Jon, 99.8% would be 600,000 Americans, which may yet be too high a figure. That said, it’s a very important example of the phenomenon illustrated in the penultimate paragraph: the neo-cons are a very opaque and tell a very inconsistent story when it comes to world affairs.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:19:45 +0000

This issue isn’t even on the radar of 99.8% of Americans. This is not to say the piece isn’t interesting, but it’s ultra-inside baseball. Who cares about the MEK? Virtually no one has heard of it, and its influence is, shall we say, difficult to discern.