Ex-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, said the “thirst for freedom and democracy” in the Mideast and the failure to win concessions on Iran’s nuclear program had built support for the MEK in Washington. He said the designation “makes no sense at all” and predicted it would likely be lifted soon. ~AP

Via Race for Iran

Since the MEK has nothing to do with freedom and democracy anywhere, Richardson’s remark is significant for its implicit acknowledgment that lifting the MEK’s designation as a terrorist organization is intended purely as a political, punitive measure. The designation makes sense if the U.S. were interested in repairing relations with Tehran in the future. The designation ceases making sense if the U.S. has no plans for diplomatic engagement. Does anyone in Washington believe that de-listing the MEK will make Tehran more cooperative? What do the advocates of de-listing the group hope that it will accomplish? Are they trying to give the current Iranian government some free propaganda victories?

Iranians have no love for the MEK, which was a longtime ally of Hussein and operated out of Iraq during the war. Openly siding with such a group could make it much easier for Tehran to present all opposition to the regime as part of a U.S. plot. At the very least, it would be received as an insult by both the government and a significant part of the population. Bush’s former AG Mukasey has reportedly called the MEK a “moderate, secular and democratic political organization.” Well, they are sort of secular. They are Islamic socialists. That’s the only part of that description that is really accurate. The best thing that anyone can say on the MEK’s behalf is that they have been disarmed for eight years and haven’t been murdering any people recently.