What if the US exchanged MEK leaders in Iraq for Al-Qaida leaders in Iran in 2003?

raharris1973

" In 2003, the Bush administration refused an offer, signed off by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, to hand over MEK leaders in Iraq in exchange for members of the military council of al-Qaida and relatives of Osama bin Laden, who had been captured by Iran as they fled Afghanistan after September 11." -

Sure, a bit unseemly, but the US making and breaking a lot of its own rules back then, and it seems like a dirty trick that's an application of Dick Cheney's One-Percent Doctrine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine.
 

overoceans

raharris1973 said:
" In 2003, the Bush administration refused an offer, signed off by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, to hand over MEK leaders in Iraq in exchange for members of the military council of al-Qaida and relatives of Osama bin Laden, who had been captured by Iran as they fled Afghanistan after September 11."
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, Iran's offer was that they(Iran) would send the al-Qaida people to the Americans, and the Americans would send the MEK people to the Iranians? The way you worded it might sound like the opposite, but that would make less geopolitical sense.
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
I think the assumption by the Neo-con faction in the US was that Iran was next. So why bother?

Besides Isis showed that Al-Quaeda wasn't the only threat.
 

Booster Gold

raharris1973 said:
" In 2003, the Bush administration refused an offer, signed off by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, to hand over MEK leaders in Iraq in exchange for members of the military council of al-Qaida and relatives of Osama bin Laden, who had been captured by Iran as they fled Afghanistan after September 11." -

Sure, a bit unseemly, but the US making and breaking a lot of its own rules back then, and it seems like a dirty trick that's an application of Dick Cheney's One-Percent Doctrine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Capturing Al-Qaeda's leaders was pretty low priority for the Bush Administration as evidenced by the missed multiple opportunities to apprehend said leaders (tora bora, taliban offers). The real project was neo-conservative nation building. This deal carries minimal upside for them... which is probably why they rejected it IOTL.

You might have better luck with a Kerry Administration
 

Seandineen

raharris1973 said:
" In 2003, the Bush administration refused an offer, signed off by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, to hand over MEK leaders in Iraq in exchange for members of the military council of al-Qaida and relatives of Osama bin Laden, who had been captured by Iran as they fled Afghanistan after September 11." -

Sure, a bit unseemly, but the US making and breaking a lot of its own rules back then, and it seems like a dirty trick that's an application of Dick Cheney's One-Percent Doctrine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine.
Click to expand...
A china style breakthrough with Iran! Allen Drury's The Roads of earth 20 years later!
 

raharris1973

overoceans said:
Just to clarify, Iran's offer was that they(Iran) would send the al-Qaida people to the Americans, and the Americans would send the MEK people to the Iranians? The way you worded it might sound like the opposite, but that would make less geopolitical sense.
Click to expand...
correct
 

Seandineen

A novel where, a russian leader who makes Putin, look like Captain Kangaroo almost starts a nuclear war. A democratic Hawk president, brings Iran and Castro to our side, against the reds, resulting in a collapse of the USSR, after an attack on Baku.
 

dcharles

Banned
Orcbuster said:
Yeah this would not fly at home. Would be considered negotiating with terrorists.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly say that "not negotiating with terrorists" is a popular political opinion, but rather a common state posture. If we can exchange Nazis, Soviet spies, and so many more without public furor, I'm sure this can be framed in a similar way.
 

Wendell

The U.S. would lose considerable standing swapping the MEK personnel unless the 2003 decision removing their terrorism designation by Washington does not happen.
 

Orcbuster

dcharleos said:
I wouldn't exactly say that "not negotiating with terrorists" is a popular political opinion, but rather a common state posture. If we can exchange Nazis, Soviet spies, and so many more without public furor, I'm sure this can be framed in a similar way.
Click to expand...

Not in 2003. Would be political suicide to do anything that looked remotely like it.
 

Seandineen

Could someone on the right,, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, advocate this as a Nixon to China moment, to bring Iran into the world community?
 

raharris1973

I distinctly recollected, from news stories and editorials in a few outlets in the 1990s, from Dick Cheney's time out of government in the 1990s, between the two Bush administrations, and working for Halliburton, he opposed the strict sanctions on Iran of the Iran-Libya Sanctions acts of 1995 and 1996. He clearly changed his tune once back in government. But this later news reporting, calls back to the earlier positions he had in the 90s. https://www.foxnews.com/story/cheney-pushed-for-more-trade-with-iran
 

Eric C Johnson

I served in the dual-hatted US Army infantry/military intelligence representative in the Effects Coordination Cell of the 4th Infantry Division at this time. I did not participate in the MEK surrender negotiations but had visibility on their progress. One key factor was that at this time (April 2003), the Office of General Counsel/Staff Judge Advocate opinions were that the MEK were part of the Iraqi State, hence the surrender negotiations as with other Iraqi military units which had not been destroyed in combat. 3rd Brigade and adequate divisional attack helicopter, artillery and Coalition air support assets were given on-order missions for kinetic combat operations against the MEK in the event satisfactory surrender terms were not obtained.

Once the MEK surrendered, they were disarmed and provided with the full appropriate provisions of the applicable Geneva Conventions and other legal obligations. This would make any proposed MEK-Al Qaida exchange highly unlikely. It would also likely require acceptance by Coalition partners for legal reasons.

The removal of the MEK from the Terrorism Watch List is a separate issue. While all such decisions must pass political muster, the fact remains that the MEK was extremely diligent at meeting the legal standards necessary to obtain that objective over a period of several years for their own reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top