• Comment (10)

GOP Public Support for Iranian Opposition Harmful

Making the strategy public could hurt the Iranian groups it's supposed to help

November 14, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Republican presidential candidates stand on the stage prior to a presidential debate on foreign policy at Wofford College November 12, 2011 in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Republican presidential hopefuls loudly called for increased support of opposition groups trying to overthrow the Islamic government of Iran at last weekend's debate, slamming the Obama administration's current policy as its "greatest failing."

But by emphasizing their support of Iranian opposition groups in such a public way, the GOP candidates could do more harm than good, experts say.

Speaking at the CBS/National Journal foreign policy debate on Saturday night, GOP candidates like former pizza magnate Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney agreed that supporting opposition in Iran was one way to help prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon. While this strategy may prove effective if done covertly, if taken public, one national security expert argues that such actions could be detrimental to the dissidents' status in Iran. [Read: Foreign Policy Debate a Battle of Rhetoric Vs. Reality.]

"The best thing the United States can do is support those opposition elements which have the most credibility very quietly. Anything we do openly that gives it a high profile tends to deprive them of legitimacy. It indicates that basically they are clients of the United States," says Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Even among the Iranians that want the regime to go, they don't want to see a United States-backed group."

Unlike in Libya where the National Transitional Council emerged earlier this year as the organized rebel movement against Col. Muammar Qadhafi's regime, Iran so far lacks any obvious, tightly-organized opposition within the country, raising questions about which dissident groups GOP candidates would support if elected.

Cain was first of the GOP candidates to suggest supporting Iran's opposition on Saturday.

"The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran, that's trying to overthrow the regime," he said. "Our enemies are not the people of Iran, it's the regime." [Read Ken Walsh: GOP Candidates Refuse to Give Up.]

Cain was referring to the opposition movement in general, rather than any specific group within the country, says his campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon. Cain is prepared to support opposition movements both publicly and covertly, Gordon says, adding, "The Iranian people are not our enemy. The enemy is the regime. And that's the point he was making."

Romney also argued on behalf of the anti-regime groups in Iran, criticizing the Obama administration for not being more vocal in its support.

"What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took the streets and say, 'America is with you.' And work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents," he said during the debate.

Lobbying efforts by the Iranian anti-government group the People's Mujahedin, or the MEK—which is now listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization—have created the impression in Washington and among some policymakers that the group should have U.S. support, Cordesman says. While the MEK is the most obvious anti-Tehran group, Cordesman says incidences of violence in the MEK's past, as well as its alignment with the former regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, undercut the group's credibility, especially within Iran's borders. [Check out our editorial cartoons on the GOP.]

The United States, he says, could alternatively help other more credible nongovernmental organizations based in and out of Iran, if it's done covertly.

While it may be useful political posturing on behalf of the presidential candidates to criticize Obama for not backing Iranian dissidents, the reality is that the current administration would probably keep any support—most likely financial support—away from public view.

It's not new, Cordesman says, for politicians to make such arguments in order to appear to take a stronger stand than their opponents. "The clear implication here is we aren't doing it," he says, referring to claims about the current administration's support for dissidents. "The probable reality is that we are. But advertising it in the process of a presidential campaign may not be the best way to be effective."

Tags:
Herman Cain,
Iran,
2012 presidential election,
Mitt Romney,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (10)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

MEK are terrorists cult which are hated by every single Iranian, even those who hate the Tehran mullahs. An Iranian messenger told the Roman general Crassus "Hair would grow on the palm of our hands before you see the capital city." Same goes for MEK "Hair will grow on the palm of every Iranians before they can rule Iran." This cult is 1000 times worse than Mullahs.

Kurosh of IL 12:30AM November 15, 2011

MEK is the best organized, viable and most feared by the Iranian regime.

I encourage readers to get their facts about the Iranian opposition: www.delistmek.com

ali of CA 9:27PM November 14, 2011

CNGS:

it is refreshing to see the Republican presidential candidates to openly support the Iranian people who were the first to rise up against tyranny, and their voices were stifled by the bullets piercing through the heart of the likes of Neda, with her wide open eyes telling the world that her people need a helping hand.

The PMOI/MEK has offered more than 120,000 fallen for the cause of freedom and irrigation of the tree of liberty, yet the State Department in its futile effort to appease the thugs, has kept them in the FTO blacklist, despite legal, intelligence and security opinionsd to the contrary.

The State, by its polices, has made the mullahs more brazen, as evidenced by their foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in washington, an act that some lawmakers have referred to as an act of war.

The US promised protection to the Residents of Camp Ashraf when in 2003 they renounced all manners of violence, relinquished their arms, and have been exposing the machinations of the mullahs to acquirte nuclear weaponary.

The residents of Camp Ashraf (40 miles northeast of Baghdad) have instead been the target of two barbaric attacks by there Iraqi forces under the direct order of the person of al-Malikli, and in collusion with the Iranian terrorist Qods force that does the dirty work for the mullahs extratertitorilly, such that was foiled in Washington DC to kill the Saudi diplomat in a restaurant frequented by many US elected and appointed officials.

The US, in its futile effort to placate the mullahs, has made them more brazen and barbaric, and reminds one of the man who fed the crocodile in the hope that he would be devoured last, and not realizing that a viper never gave birth to dove.

Enough ids enough, let's take the main opposition off the list, like the Three Judge Panel DC Appeals Court ordered more 480 days ago, and see the result in no time, and at the same time refuse to give the Iraqi government to massacre the residents of Camp Ashraf, because their organization is in the infamous list...

CNGS

CNGS of NJ 8:55PM November 14, 2011

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos