Both Terrorist and Ally
By Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson
CNSNews.com Commentary

One of the stranger news items coming out of Iraq these days concerns an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). It's a U.S. government-designated terrorist organization that coalition forces first bombed from the air, then signed a ceasefire agreement with, and finally disarmed and protected.

Say that again?

The MEK is not your typical anti-Western group but an organization with a strong political presence in Western capitals and over 3,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq, singularly dedicated to one goal: overthrowing its "archenemy," the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, during its seventeen years in Iraq, it also had to do Saddam Hussein's bidding.
This situation raises several questions:

* Is the MEK a terrorist group? No. It used terrorism decades ago, when its members attacked Americans. For the last fifteen years, however, the MEK has been organized as an army, and its only violent actions have been directed against the Iranian regime. Unlike Hezbollah (which targets Jewish community centers and shoots rockets into civilian areas), the MEK attacks specific regime targets. Unlike the PLO and Sinn Fein (whose leaders were terrorists more recently and arguably still are), the MEK really has foresworn this barbaric tactic.

* Can the MEK liberate Iran? No. Its strategy of invasion by an army cannot work. The foul theocracy in Tehran will come to an end when the democratic forces in Iran finally manage to push it aside. Foreigners can best help them by encouraging satellite television transmissions from Iranians living in free countries (as Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kan, has recently proposed).

* Can the MEK be useful? Yes. Western spy agencies are short on "human intelligence" - meaning spies on the ground in Iran, as distinct from eyes in the sky. Coalition military commanders should seek out the MEK for information on the Iranian mullahs' agents in Iraq. The MEK can also supply key information about developments in Iran where, despite a tendency toward exaggeration, it has had some major scoops. Its information in mid-2002 about Iran's nuclear program, for example, was better than what the International Atomic Energy Agency knew, thereby leading a shocked U.S. government to kick off an investigation that confirmed just how far advanced the Iranians are toward building a nuclear bomb.

Policy toward the MEK has long been quietly but intensely and bitterly debated in Washington. To curry favor with Iranian "moderates," the State Department designated the group in 1997 as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Although 150 members of Congress publicly opposed this designation, a U.S. court of appeals recently upheld it.

This stark difference of views helps explain Washington's erratic policies of late. On April 15, the U.S. Army signed a ceasefire permitting the MEK to keep its weapons and use them against Iranian regime infiltrators into Iraq. This deal infuriated the State Department, which then convinced the president to undo it, leading to the strange sight of U.S. troops surrounding MEK camps on May 9, disarming its fighters, and taking up positions to protect them.

That's a bad idea. Coalition forces are urgently needed to restore order elsewhere in Iraq. And State is dreaming if it thinks the sight of U.S. troops guarding the MEK will mollify Iran's mullahs.

Instead, as the U.S. Army recommends, MEK members should (after giving assurances not to attack Iranian territory) be permitted enough arms to protect themselves from their Iranian opponents. And in November, when the secretary of state next decides whether or not to re-certify the MEK as a terrorist group, he should come to the sensible conclusion that it poses no threat to the security of the United States or its citizens, and remove it from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Finally, because Iran's mullahs irrationally fear the MEK (as shown by their 1988 massacre in the jails of Iran of 10,000 long-imprisoned MEK members and supporters), maintaining the MEK as an organized group in separate camps in Iraq offers an excellent way to intimidate and gain leverage over Tehran.

To deter the mullahs from taking hostile steps (supporting terrorism against coalition troops in Iraq, building nuclear weapons), it could prove highly effective to threaten U.S. meetings with the MEK or providing help for its anti-regime publicity campaign.

(Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America. Patrick Clawson is deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

27 May 2003
Over 2,300 people on Sinn Fein/IRA death list files.

Strangford MP Iris Robinson has claimed that over 2,300 people have been informed that they are on files found during a raid on Sinn Fein's Stormont offices last year.

The DUP member said police had issued 2,310 notices to people with details on file. The figures came in a response to her written question in the House of Commons to the Secretary of State Paul Murphy, regarding how many people have been informed that their details were unearthed in the raid.

She added: "These statistics prove beyond any doubt just how detailed the intelligence gathering operation had been by IRA/Sinn Fein. Clearly this information was to be used for terrorist use at some future period in time and clearly proves that the republican movement had no intention to walk the peaceful path, but instead is unquestionably wedded to the twin-track approach of terrorism and politics."

Of the 2310, 1,427 were issued to Prison Officers, 98 were issued to police officers and 43 were issued to politicians in Northern Ireland. Police swooped on Sinn Fein's Stormont offices on October 4 last year as part of an investigation into alleged intelligence gathering by republican terrorists inside the Northern Ireland Office.

The find eventually led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the suspension of local institutions, and a return to direct rule from London.

RIR moves 'an attempt to appease republicans'

Fury over threat to Iraq hero battalions

By Ben Lowry

A SENIOR officer in the Royal Irish Regiment spoke today of the fury in the ranks of the home battalions at news of their possible disbandment. The officer, who did not want to disclose his identity, described the move as "disastrous" and a "shameless" attempt to appease republicans. He said that few members of the regiment believed Army denials that it was a done deal. "The home service Royal Irish, which were the Ulster Defence Regiment, have held the line in this country for 33 years. Hundreds of them have been killed and thousands injured," the officer said. "Suddenly, when we don't have peace and terrorists still have their arsenals, they are to be disbanded on a whim to bring Sinn Fein back into government. It is clearly a political move."

He described such a loss as much worse than the disbandment of the UDR because there would be nothing to replace it locally. And he questioned whether the IRA would disarm anyway. The officer said British forces had been "sent across the world to fight a war because we were told there were weapons of mass destruction that threatened the UK. None of this materialised. And yet we pander to real terrorism at home". He expressed anger that the home service soldiers who reinforced the 1st Battalion in the Gulf should "return to this news". The officer was gloomy about the future prospects of the 2,100 full-time soldiers. "Who in this country wants to write on an application form that they are a former Royal Irish soldier when you do not know who is reading it?" he asked.

He said that the Government should "not be under any illusions that soldiers will transfer to English regiments". "They joined precisely because it was based in Northern Ireland, to protect the country from terrorist attack. "Having lost their expertise, the Government will never get it back - even if the war starts again. It is disastrous - the British Army is totally understrength. To be getting rid of three battalions when they intend to garrison 5,000 troops here is madness. "Why do they not keep the full-time element of the home service? It would release 2,000 soldiers from other regiments to ease the strain on the rest of the Army."

Thousands OF Ulster Scots took part in a pro-war prayer vigil at Belfast City Hall yesterday, held to support the troops on the ground in Iraq.

One intriguing aspect of how the Iraqi issue has infilitrated Ulster politics is how it seems the Protestants appear avowedly pro-war, praising the work of American and British troops, while the republicans and nationalists (Catholics) seem decidely anti.

Indeed, the debate got a little heated last night when Ulster Scots who attended the vigil in honour of the troops, decried Sinn Fein's "so-called" anti-war "prancing", saying: "These were people who were quite happy to kill for an ignoble cause, who were prepared to pursue a war to undermine democracy, and who now oppose the liberation of people and the freeing of them from what is undoubtedly an evil dictatorship."

The Ulster Flag, Union Flag and the Stars and Stripes were very much in evidence at the support the troops vigil, "I hope at least some snippets of this get an airing in the USA so that America can see for itself who is standing shoulder to shoulder with them" said one man from South Londonderry.

AT least one person was assaulted in disturbances prior to the demonstration in support of coalition soldiers on Iraq. "As the disturbance took place at the junction of Castle Street and Kings Street, police officers were employed to the scene, by which time the disturbance had finished." The spokesman stressed that police were not attributing the trouble to organisers of the rally, which passed off without incident.

Ultra Irish Terrorists and hypocrites Sinn Fein/IRA