Skip navigation

Can ‘terrorists’ be turned into allies?


< Prev | 1 | 2
Michael Moran
Senior correspondent
INTERACTIVE
Iran's tortured path
A timeline of revolution and reform

A verified success
In fact, the MEK has shown promise as an intelligence gathering tool. In 2002, it was the MEK that funneled information about nuclear weapons development activity at an Iranian site — Natanz — to the United States, something acknowledged by President Bush recently when he noted that the information was only made known “because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." An inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency subsequently verified the MEK’s tip, though U.S. intelligence agencies have insisted they knew about Natanz already.

The term “dissident group” as applied by Bush to the MEK was music to Tanter’s ears. The White House later denied the president was taking sides on the MEK/terrorist list issue, but the group’s backers sense they are gaining ground. Earlier this year, Rice made a similar statement, and the MEK also has been granted “protected person status” by the U.S government, a Geneva Convention label that places them under the direct protection of American troops. That move raised eyebrows at the State Department and led to a spirited back and forth between department spokesman Adam Ereli and reporters  as the spokesman attempted to explain why American troops would protect 3,800 people regarded by U.S. policy as terrorists.

Tanter, for his part, sees no way the MEK will remain on the list come the fall. A long-time professor of Middle Eastern affairs and a regular in Washington conservative circles, Tanter is a rarity on several counts. He was one of the few African-Americans to serve in influential position during the Reagan administration, when he was a senior staff aide on the National Security Council before taking a leading role in nuclear arms negotiations. And, he’s an unabashed neo-conservative.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Most of all, he seems to relish academic controversy in a field that prefers peer review. This has made him something of a pariah among the small but elite group of Iran experts in Washington.

“I recognize that I’m alone in the scholarly community. There are some great Iran specialists, Michael Eisenstadt, Patrick Clauson, Kenneth Pollack at Brookings, and none of them knows what to do about Iran. They admit they’re on the horns of a dilemma. But I say we can’t afford to sit around and wait. Regime change is the only way that you can decrease the likelihood of a radical Islamist regime will have nuclear weapons. That doesn’t make me popular, but that doesn’t make me wrong, either.”

© 2009 msnbc.com Reprints


< Prev | 1 | 2