Commending Dick Armey'S Op-Ed On The Mek
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the following op-ed about the MEK to the body. This is an important topic and I hope Members will have an opportunity to review it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [July 24, 2007] Empowering the Democratic…
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the following op-ed about the MEK to the body. This is an important topic and I hope Members will have an opportunity to review it.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
[July 24, 2007]
Empowering the Democratic Opposition in Iran
(By Dick Armey)
During the Cold War, the free world was threatened by a
nuclear-armed state based on a radical, all-encompassing and
discredited ideology, a regime that projected an aggressive
agenda of global domination even as it struggled to keep its
own dissatisfied citizens in line back home. While America
and her allies maintained a resolute posture of military
strength to keep Soviet expansionism in check, ultimately it
was our example of freedom that inspired the restive peoples
living under the Evil Empire to tear down the wall.
Taking a leaf out of history's notebook, there are striking
similarities between the
dangers now emanating from tehran and those fueled by Moscow
during the Soviet era. Iran's regime is also based on a
radical, all-encompassing and discredited ideology, and
projects an aggressive, destabilizing international posture
while suppressing the will of its own citizens. The good news
may be that, like the totalitarian ideology before it, the
extremist fundamentalism of the Iranian mullahs could best be
attacked by the power of an idea called freedom.
There is currently no shortage of high-level American
attention to Iran. My former colleagues in Congress are
working to impose tougher economic pressure and bans on
investment in iran, while the Bush administration is working
to marshal stronger international will to enforce the
sanctions.
But the other part of the Iran equation must be to
encourage the kind of peaceful revolution inside Iran that
not only Americans desire, but that a majority of the iranian
people themselves want.
Military intervention is not a viable option.
``Engagement'' may seem like an appealing alternative. But
the diplomatic history of the past 30 years provides a
chronicle of successive setbacks suffered by the West while
the regime continued its relentless march toward
nuclearization while bankrolling terrorists and expanding its
power and reach.
Current efforts at ``engagement'' have done nothing to
advance the cause of freedom inside Iran. The regime has
recently resorted to a crackdown on internal dissent and
personal freedom, targeting everything from community
organizations to the nation's burgeoning private banking
system--pillars of civil society and a free market economy.
Visiting Iranian-American scholars are detained on absurd,
trumped-up charges and made to ``confess'' their ``crimes''
on television.
Like the captive peoples of the Soviet empire a generation
ago, today's Iranians are receptive to ideas that challenge
the ruling orthodoxy. Indeed, the popularity of America in
Iran seems to rise the more the regime demonizes us.
One of the best assets working for reform is demographics--
nearly 70 percent of Iran's 68 million citizens are under the
age of 30. They are impatient for change, and they are the
future.
America and our partners should work with and empower
freedom-loving elements within Iran and among the Iranian
Diaspora, broadcasting messages of democracy and providing
support, moral and otherwise, to the brave dissidents. While
we must avoid doing this with a heavy hand, lest our efforts
backfire, there are ways we can help level the playing field
and give the opposition a fighting chance.
Supporting the democratic opposition holds great promise
for promoting the cause of freedom and democracy in iran,
particularly the group feared most by the regime: the
Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), for decades demonized by the regime
for its efforts to encourage ``soft'' revolution.
Never has the old adage, ``the enemy of my enemy is my
friend,'' been more true than in the case of the MEK, whose
members residing in Ashraf City, Iraq, are protected persons
under the Geneva Convention. But, in a stark example of
failed ``engagement,'' the organization was placed on the
list of foreign terrorist organizations by the Clinton
administration as a way of placating the so-called
``moderates'' in Iran.
Attracting world attention in 2002, the MEK first revealed
the existence of Iran's secret nuclear facility at Natanz.
Today it is providing useful intelligence that is saving the
lives of Coalition soldiers in Iraq. Thus, it comes as no
surprise that the regime is eager to use the next round of
``engagement'' with American officials to further isolate the
MEK, as part of iran's certain-to-be-unfulfilled pledge to
reduce its influence in Iraq.
Two of my former congressional colleagues, Reps. Tom
Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Bob Filner (D-Calif.), are leading a
bipartisan effort to urge the State Department to remove the
MEK from the terrorist list, where it was wrongly included in
the first place.
Removing the MEK from the list represents one concrete step
we could take to help the Iranian people forward on the long
road to achieving freedom and real democracy in their
country.