MKO’s paradoxical role in the US-Iran Normalization of Relations
To Hooshang Amirahmadi with my best wishes and compliments.
I have since long been informed of your written articles and all-out efforts in bringing the US and Iran together in respect to the existing stalemate in the two countries’ negotiations. Theses efforts in themselves, regardless of ambiguous objectives many individuals and parties try to achieve, can put an end to many existing challenges. In your articles you have generalized a number of influential and key factors that play a substantial role in deterring further negotiation. There is no need to mention them as you have already done in detail. But you should pay much attention to external factors that, for certain reasons, try to escalate the tension between the US and Iran and, unfortunately, you have been non-observant of them. It might have been a deliberate or conservative negligence, I do not intend speculation and casting aspersion, or you were afraid of being labeled as it is common among the opposition. It is not a simple issue to dismiss especially since your main efforts is focused on digging up the roots of dispute to find a solution to ease flexibility from the both sides.
No doubt, the US has taken, unlike the past two or three decades, a rather rational position towards the global issues. The change, before any thing, is the result of the general condition of the developing countries and rise of nationalist movements on the one hand and the US avowal of democratizing the world on the other hand. The impelled change, albeit pretentiously, well distinguishes the present America from that of the past. Observe the difference in the US-run coup d’etat in Chile to topple Allende’s national-elected government and the today’s attempts of freeing Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny. The export of democracy to developing countries, I believe, is the other side of militarism; both disregarding peoples’ own will to decide for themselves.
No need to mention these issues as you are well informed. My main word is about the existing crosscurrents that, disguised as opposition, try to escalate the tension between the US and Iran to achieve their own ends. In your articles, you have dealt in detail with the internal deterrents that hinder normalization of relations but you avoid discussing the disruptive role of the opposition and Mojahedin-e Khalq in particular. Not advocating the Islamic Republic’s manner of behavior, I do not expect you to be critical or even opponent of MKO depending on your own opinions. I say that if these deterrents are to be analyzed in general and their supposed interests out of these challenges are delineated, MKO’s role in escalation of the tension should never be overlooked. Are you in doubt that MKO consent to any political bargain on the expense of the country’s national interests? As I have noticed about you, you object to the strategy MKO has adopted. You know better about MKO’s intention when the group urges to compromise with the US. A passing look over its news coverage unveils the fact that the group is doing its best to escalate the tension between the two countries.
An observable evidence to talk about is MKO’s stance in Iran’s nuclear file. How the challenge might be influential in normalization of the relations is an issue of its own concern, but MKO’s distortion of the truth with the help of different media means well indicates the group’s destructive role to aggravate the tension. Do you believe that Mojahedin are really concerned about the global peace and security as they claim? Knowing the answer already and that Mojahedin strive to suggest a military solution to a diplomatic dispute could have provoked you as an activist to unveil the group’s insincere, hidden intentions for the public.
You have certainly seen the letter Mansour Qadrkhah, a member of the NCRI, addressed to George W. Bush wherein he entreated Bush to find a decisive solution against Iran not dismissing the military invasion. The existing gap between such an anti-national vision and your efforts to secure the general national interests should have somehow been an issue of interest to you. I believe it would be off the mark if the internal parties and factions were blamed as the sole deterrents excluding the destructive role of this opposition. The truth being unveiled about the real intention of this opposition, it is possible to demarcate between the nationalist and organizational interests of the activists and those who do object to the normalization of the relations. I think you are well aware, like me, of Mojahedin’s lobbying efforts in the Congress and their round the clock sit-ins. These appeals might produce repercussion on the normalization of relations. I expect you to deal with MKO in the same way you analyze the internal opposition deterrents. Certainly, Mojahedin at some country’s political fluctuations had destructive impact on the procedure of normalizing the ties between Iran and other countries.
It should be also pointed out that Americans are somehow paying for their past flaws. The US extension of apology to Iranian people for their misguided policies including 1953 coup to topple Dr. Mossadiq’s legal government is a rather logical approach for the initiation of any negotiation. At least the Americans acknowledge their past misdoings; the enthusiastic, revolutionary anti-imperialism Mojahedin not only befriend the ex-imperialism enemy but also try to posture as a pro-democratic force to be awarded the legitimacy of an alternative. They have absolutely forgotten, or pretend to, that in many occasions reproached the Islamic Republic for making attempts to reconstruct the relation with the US. They have announced readiness to carry out any plots that the Americans themselves are ashamed to do.
Mojahedin’s only objective to fulfill is to assume political power. It should be a subject of interest to analyze to illuminate the minds who are misguided by the false propagandas of confronting, for instance, fundamentalism or so. I am ready for any further cooperation and dialogue to illuminate your mind on the subject if necessary. Yours