The Black Vault

arguments for and against MEK removal from us state department designate:
cont... all conflicting news . everyone representing. got dog in the race, from former bush neocons paid indirectly through wealthy Iranians /other sources, to peaceniks whom understandably don't want anything to do w/war. destabilizing. but, the latter offer little in cold hard facts.( information brokers)

if anyone characterized the group most correctly. it was the Iranians for calling them hypocrites. the groups history of fighting against the shah of Iran proof positive the ever changing duplicitous nature of the changing winds of loyalty (or extension of values according to whom ? )

ghaddafi , and Sadam , and Mubarak to an degree went quietly unto that good night. all supported by the unitedstates of America at one time or another. all torturers extrodinaire. all guilty as hell human rights violators.

suddenly, America got its grove (or so we think) and we saw the peoples dignity
and want of freedom. freedom from certainly the yoke of oppression .

in our time line context...that was than baby , this is now. the shah of Iran
is equal to but not greater than Omar ghaddafi , whom is equal to but not greater than Sadam etc... and so on . the group will have looked apon as freedom fighters of Libya or Tunisia. the collateral damage and assassinations of the time
were fighting as liberation from an dictator.

the groups ability to morph by design or idealogical fronts only aid and abet
its confusion of divided loyalties. once grounded in Islamic idealogical dogma,
than Marxist , now capitalistic ? (hence hypocrites ) who can say fosho ? is this an irony ? for mek to work for Israel would be counterproductive , to american goals
of reproachment and nonproliferation metrics w/ Iran .

should Iran make the mek an listed terror orgainization in America an issue
during negotiations ? I don't know . but , if the lobbying efforts by the neocons in America have it there way. the delisting could throw an monkey wrench
in delicate nuclear proliferation talks. some of which have the potential to bear fruit, if it's agreeable to have the reported monitors( at site) and enrichment
contracts in place. why let this unprecedented opportunity rot on the vine ?

question to self. have mek turned over yet another new leaf ? do they provoke
by assassination and providing intel to foreign enemies of irans government ?
or will the mek denounce violence , and reap the rewards of delisting from the terrorist list ? greater funding comes mischief.


from an humanitarian standpoint they should be divided among countries willing to take them, because certainly they are in an indelicate position where currently located.

the countries that used them and first to delist come to mind.

through writers of reputation and foreshadowing h/t ( j.l.) it was
brought to the forefront that our president might lose flexibility , by
taking a stand against any nuke weapons production. thereby ,
should dialectics and leadership shift policy , he's " boxed himself in"

but if here is an irony . both parties or rather all parties might use mek as
an serious leverage asset. but keeping in mind the loser is Israel .

I suspect as much if mek is delisted its could lead to an serious outbreak of hostilities and again American goals of non proliferation and eventual complacent acceptance . "containment" may be as important as regime change would be to Israeli. not what I'd call an mirror image of goals brother.

compelling reasons for or against mek appear everywhere. one can hope America's values have morphed along the once great arab divide. and support
for dignity is viewed from the strictly American experience (new)

will the Americans be able to offer regional security assurance from

possible unilateral israelian aggression ? ( invite Peres )


what are the possibilities of multi lateral compliance monitoring that includes

Israel.?