Dear editor:
One of Henry Kissinger's aphorisms that remains spot-on today is that "Americans have no permanent friends or enemies, only interests". Darkly echoing Libertarian philosophy, those words are American foreign policy. As such, the consequence of arrogance in the injudicious use of military might has fed the anti-war movement for decades. The case of Iran is a particularly important example of our challenge to understand applying the Libertarian party’s platform of withdrawal from conflict zones.
The tension surrounding Mujahideen-e-Khalq (aka MEK) has provided a split within the anti-war movement - one that has essentially crippled the effort. Groups such as Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, and Hands Off Syria allow their in-fighting to derail any serious movement to effect “welfare/warfare” change. Sarah Flounders manages to be anti-Sisi but pro-Assad. Chris Wilson documents Tamimmi supporters but will not do so for Gazans. And Rania Khalek, employed by Russia Today, assists by spreading propaganda videos such as you see here.
MEK remains a controversial group with no apologies for its origins or it's subsequent fight against Iran. Massoud Rajavi's classic socialist neighborhood unit remains its core organizational structure today actively - and successfully - working in the country to organize strikes, street protests and oppositional events. (As such, re-instatement of US sanctions is directly beneficial to MEK as internal economic pressures ratchet upwards.) The National Council of Resistance in Iran, the group's international diaspora umbrella, remains the most trusted source of intelligence on economics, political tactics and human rights abuses within the legal system. Headed by his widow, Maryam, NCRI has remained steadfast, professional and respected in it's mission for a secular, world-friendly government by and for the people.
So let us take away the point of Shi'a versus Sunni tensions and even Iran's stated agenda for investment in Syria. What does this have to with the Libertarian party? It is time for us to step away from the anti-war groups and courting support on a singular intersection of interest. Their domestic agendas of progressive change are not ours and playing into the arena of confounds is not assisting cooperatively. So while it is fair to say that MEK has been an equal opportunist in its relationships with the US, I feel that we must be equally pragmatic in creating a strategy of interaction. A "no entangling alliances" stance does not mean isolation and a libertarian America will still engage in the world.