Hussein Ibish applauds the overdue investigations into the funding used to pay American MEK advocates:

The Treasury Department is to be commended for launching a long-overdue investigation into the MEK’s well-funded US lobby, as well as its large payments to exceptionally prominent Americans who certainly ought to know better. Some have claimed ignorance about the MEK’s history and practices. However, any 10-year-old with an Internet connection could discover the truth about this nefarious organization within minutes of casual browsing.

The most bizarre defense MEK advocates use when confronted about the payments they receive is their insistence that they would never be bought off, as if it were irrelevant that their payments were coming from sympathizers with a terrorist group. The advocates seem to think it is more laudable to speak on behalf of a terrorist group when it is motivated by a sincere desire to help them. As Glenn Greenwald detailed earlier this month, according to the current overly-broad interpretation of what constitutes “material support” of a terrorist organization the MEK advocates are in violation of the law.

Ibish also argues against de-listing the group:

Were the State Department to de-list the organization as a terrorist group, the official American approach to international terrorism would be shorn of any pretense of principle. Moral clarity on terrorism would be abandoned in favor of the logic of “they’re our terrorists, so they’re acceptable,” simply on the basis that their targets are the repulsive regime in Tehran and its nuclear program, possibly under Israeli state sponsorship.

Ibish is correct. Unfortunately, “moral clarity” is often associated with policies defended by ends-justifying-the-means arguments, and it’s no coincidence that many of the people who invoke that phrase most often are among the least concerned by American expressions of support for the MEK.