Haaretz
Elul 24, 5766
* "Israel doesn't have the military strength to
attack all of Iran's nuclear installations. Only the United States can do
that."
* "But neither the United States nor Israel should do so."
* "A military strike will not solve the problem."
* "I
nevertheless anticipate that the United States, under a Republican
administration of Bush or his successor, will face a choice of not whether
but when to attack Iran."
* "A Democratic president will also face
that choice but will not attack."
These statements were made by
Prof. Raymond Tanter of Georgetown University and the head of the Iran
Policy Committee, a group that studies Iranian opposition groups and has
concluded that supporting the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) is in America's
interest. The MEK is a controversial Iranian militia that is opposed to
the rule of the ayatollahs. Tanter is the co-author of "Appeasing the
Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: U.S. Policy and the Iranian
Opposition."
Tanter and the members of the committee believe that
the only way to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons is to replace
the religious regime in Iran with a democratic regime. In their opinion,
only Mujahideen-e-Khalq can do that.
However, the organization
faces several significant problems: The United States has declared it a
terror organization; most Iranians consider the members of MEK traitors,
because they supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the
1980s; and they are considered a weak group, lacking broad support in Iran
itself. Last week Tanter presented his thoughts and plan at the sixth
conference of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary
Center Herzliya, and in a conversation with Haaretz.
Tanter, 67,
is considered a genius in international relations. At the age of 25, he
completed his doctorate at the University of Indiana. He belongs to the
school that introduced the use of mathematical models and quantitative
studies in international relations. He has taught at top American
universities, and in 1974 he spent his sabbatical at Hebrew University's
Institute for International Relations (in the interest of proper
disclosure, I was his student at the time.)
Between one academic
job and the next, Tanter filled several positions in the White House and
the Pentagon, mainly during Ronald Reagan's presidency. For two years
(1981-1982) he was a member of the National Security Council, in charge of
Libya and Lebanon (among his other assignments, Tanter followed Israeli
policy which led to the invasion at the time.) He is identified with the
Republican Party and has for the most part held conservative opinions. In
his opinion, however, President George W. Bush's administration is not
sufficiently conservative.
And here is his viewpoint in a
nutshell: "Israel does not have the military strength to attack Iran's
nuclear installations. For that there is a need for aerial strength that
will enable continuous and prolonged attacks against unknown sites, and
the Israel Air Force does not have such capability. Only the United States
can do that. In the final analysis, the United States will attack, on
condition that there isn't a Democratic president in the White House. A
Republican administration is more likely to attack in the absence of a
political regime change policy, whether there are good military
opportunities or not.
"But attacking will not provide a
fundamental solution to the problem. It will not eliminate Iran's nuclear
program, but will only delay it. In order to bring about a halt to the
nuclear program, there has to be a regime change there. Such a change is
possible and can take place within a short period of time. From the moment
that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq is removed from the U.S. State Department's
list of terror organizations, they will bring about regime change in less
time than it takes the regime of the ayatollahs to obtain nuclear
weapons."
How much time are we talking about?
"I tend to
accept the assessment of Israeli intelligence rather than that of the CIA,
that Iran will have nuclear weapons within one to three years."
And during such a short period of time will you be able to give
Mujahideen-e-Khalq control over Iran? How? With the support of the Mossad
and the CIA?
"No. Intelligence organizations must under no
circumstances be involved. Otherwise it will be a repeat of 1953 and the
Mossadegh affair [the CIA and the British MI6 organized a coup that
removed prime minister Mossadegh, who had nationalized the oil industry,
and brought back Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Shah - Y.M.]. Our 10-point plan
has clear guidelines: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should
declare the removal of Mujahideen-e-Khalq from the list of terror
organizations, Congressional leaders should invite Maryam Rajabi [the head
of the political arm of the organization, and the wife of its leader -
Y.M.] to testify before the congressional committees; and the Pentagon
should allow the organization to operate from Iraq against the regime in
Iran."
But the regime in Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
were elected in democratic elections.
"The elections were
democratic only de jure. The council for the defense of the Islamic regime
rejected hundreds of candidates and allowed only its own candidates to
participate in the elections. That's how Ahmadinejad was elected by
default when the corrupt candidate, former president Rafsanjani, opposed
him. It was a choice between a killer and a crook. Eighty percent of those
eligible to vote did not participate in the elections. We believe that the
moment the organization is able to operate from Iraq it will gain public
favor in Iran.
"People will go into the streets to demonstrate.
That happened already in 1981, when half a million Mujahideen-e-Khalq
supporters did that. The regime will order the demonstrators dispersed by
force and suppressed. Those who will try to carry out the order are the
Basaji, the armed street militia of the Revolutionary Guards. They will
shoot at demonstrators, a civil war will break out, and then in the heat
of the events the army will intervene, stop the bloodshed, remove the
ayatollahs and take over."
But even then there will be no
guarantee that Iran will stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons. We know
that this is an Iranian national ambition, regardless of ideology and
world view.
"Mujahideen-e-Khalq have already declared that they
are not interested in manufacturing nuclear weapons. But no one cares if a
democratic Iran has nuclear weapons. Who cares if Israel or India has
nuclear weapons?"
Mujahideen-e-Khalq was founded in the 1960s by
Iranian students with Marxist views, who were opposed to the Shah's
pro-Western policy. They joined Ayatollah Khomeini in the Islamic
Revolution, but the combination of Marxist ideas and the principles of
Islam did not accord with his plans, and in 1981 the group was expelled
from its bases in Iran. The members of the group came under the wing of
Saddam Hussein, who gave them bases and weapons and enabled them to
operate from Iraqi territory during the Iran-Iraq war. This act was seen
as betrayal by most of the Iranians, even opponents of the regime.
At the end of the war, the members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq
established headquarters in Paris, and since then they have been
activating thousands of activists and underground fighters from there.
They have guerrilla and terrorist activities to their credit, such as the
elimination of senior officers, including the chief of staff of the
Iranian army, and an attack on the presidential palace in Tehran (in 2000,
during the term of President Khatami.) In addition, it was members of the
organization who discovered the two secret plants for enriching uranium
that Iran had not declared, and which were therefore not under
international supervision. When the U.S. Army invaded Iraq, it disarmed
the organization and prohibited it from operating.
The reason why
Mujahideen-e-Khalq is defined as a terror organization is based on several
incidents. The group's activists are suspected of the murder of U.S.
citizens on Iranian soil during the period of the Shah. Prof. Tanter and
his associates claim that those who carried out the acts were Maoist
activists who did not obey the leadership of the organization. Another
reason is its support for the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by
Iranian students and holding its 52 employees as hostages.
Tanter
believes that Israel can help legitimize Mujahideen-e-Khalq: "I'm not
asking the Mossad to join them and cooperate with them. They should not be
involved, and Israel should stay out of the picture. Mujahideen-e-Khalq do
not wish such a tie with Israel. But Israel has influence in the United
States. It has supporters and a lobby and it can ask them to have MEK
removed from the State Department's list of terror organizations.
Instead, Israel is taking a neutral stance, and that's a pity.
Mujahideen-e-Khalq is the only game in town if we want to bring about
regime change in Iran. To paraphrase Churchill's words about democracy, I
think that Mujahideen-e-Khalq is the worst option, except for all the
other alternatives."
Your support for the MEK seems like putting
all your eggs in one basket.
"No, I put my eggs in the Iranian
people, not in a single group."