Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Terror Group Deal

Aired April 30, 2003 - 07:19   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: War can certainly make some strange bedfellows. Perhaps there is no better sign than this: The U.S. striking a deal with the People's Mujahedeen in Iraq. That is a group on the State Department's list of terrorists. The cease-fire agreement allows the group, an Iranian opposition group, to keep their weapons, at least for now.
So, why would the Bush administration make a deal with terrorists?

CNN analyst Ken Pollack, with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution is in Washington, and he joins us this morning.

Ken -- good to see you once again.

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Good to see you, Daryn. Thank you.

KAGAN: Tell us more about this group that I understand is actually run by a woman.

POLLACK: That's correct. It is headed by a woman. It's been in existence basically since the Iranian revolution. They are an Islamic group, but they have a very different idea about governance in Iran. They are a resistance group to Iran.

But the most important thing about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, at least over the last 15 or 20 years, is that they have become a wholly- owned subsidiary of Saddam Hussein's regime. Whatever their initial aspirations, their determination to fight the Iranian regime, they decided to do it by throwing in their lot with Saddam Hussein.

And in, fact, over the years, they became increasingly associated with Saddam Hussein to the extent that in the 1990s, Saddam actually used the People's Mujahedeen against Iraq's own citizens.

KAGAN: OK, so then, let's review here. If you have a group that has ties to the Saddam Hussein regime, on the State Department list of terrorist groups since 1997, and described as a mix of Islamism and what Marxism, what could possibly be in it for the Bush administration to sign any kind of agreement with a group like this?

POLLACK: Well, I think the basic answer is political or military pragmatism in this case. You've got troops on the ground. They're trying to get control over Iraq. And my guess is that the local commander decided that this was a group that was organized, that was willing to put up a fight, or was willing to sign a cease-fire with the United States. And much better to prevent the shootings, stop the fighting, rather than actually have to shoot it out with these guys. They've got other problems to deal with. That's my guess as to exactly what happened.

And they do make clear that they only signed a cease-fire. This isn't some kind of a peace agreement. They have not agreed necessarily that there is not going to be any action against the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. It's simply a cease-fire agreement.

KAGAN: But when you have an administration like the Bush administration that comes out and clearly says things like you're with us or you're against us, we will go against all terrorist groups, is this hypocritical when you have to make deals like this?

POLLACK: Well, I think you're certainly right, Daryn, that this is going to add some confusion to exactly what the Bush administration does think. And you've heard people suggest that there are other areas where the Bush administration has not been quite so black and white, at least as their rhetoric suggests.

A willingness to sign a truce, a cease-fire agreement with a group like the MEK, which, as you point out, is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, is going to send some confusing signals to people.

KAGAN: And so, would you expect there will be more deals like this to come with other groups, just doing what you've got to do?

POLLACK: I honestly do not know, Daryn. I think this may well have been a one-off shot. There aren't too many other groups like this in Iraq, but, you know, if the occupation continues to go badly, if the reconstruction of Iraq continues to go badly, you might see others emerge. And under those circumstances, again, you might see the United States willing to strike temporary agreements if it is expedient.

I think the bigger issue here is: Has the United States created a problem for itself down the road in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq? There are a lot of Iraqis who aren't very happy about the People's Mujahedeen, because of their role in suppressing Iraq's own population on behalf of Saddam Hussein's behalf.

You know, it may be that this was politically expedient for the moment, but is this going to come back and bite us all later on?

KAGAN: We will be watching it, as you will. Ken Pollack from Washington. Ken, thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.






Aired April 30, 2003 - 07:19   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: War can certainly make some strange bedfellows. Perhaps there is no better sign than this: The U.S. striking a deal with the People's Mujahedeen in Iraq. That is a group on the State Department's list of terrorists. The cease-fire agreement allows the group, an Iranian opposition group, to keep their weapons, at least for now.
So, why would the Bush administration make a deal with terrorists?

CNN analyst Ken Pollack, with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution is in Washington, and he joins us this morning.

Ken -- good to see you once again.

KEN POLLACK, CNN ANALYST: Good to see you, Daryn. Thank you.

KAGAN: Tell us more about this group that I understand is actually run by a woman.

POLLACK: That's correct. It is headed by a woman. It's been in existence basically since the Iranian revolution. They are an Islamic group, but they have a very different idea about governance in Iran. They are a resistance group to Iran.

But the most important thing about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, at least over the last 15 or 20 years, is that they have become a wholly- owned subsidiary of Saddam Hussein's regime. Whatever their initial aspirations, their determination to fight the Iranian regime, they decided to do it by throwing in their lot with Saddam Hussein.

And in, fact, over the years, they became increasingly associated with Saddam Hussein to the extent that in the 1990s, Saddam actually used the People's Mujahedeen against Iraq's own citizens.

KAGAN: OK, so then, let's review here. If you have a group that has ties to the Saddam Hussein regime, on the State Department list of terrorist groups since 1997, and described as a mix of Islamism and what Marxism, what could possibly be in it for the Bush administration to sign any kind of agreement with a group like this?

POLLACK: Well, I think the basic answer is political or military pragmatism in this case. You've got troops on the ground. They're trying to get control over Iraq. And my guess is that the local commander decided that this was a group that was organized, that was willing to put up a fight, or was willing to sign a cease-fire with the United States. And much better to prevent the shootings, stop the fighting, rather than actually have to shoot it out with these guys. They've got other problems to deal with. That's my guess as to exactly what happened.

And they do make clear that they only signed a cease-fire. This isn't some kind of a peace agreement. They have not agreed necessarily that there is not going to be any action against the Mujahedin-e-Khalq. It's simply a cease-fire agreement.

KAGAN: But when you have an administration like the Bush administration that comes out and clearly says things like you're with us or you're against us, we will go against all terrorist groups, is this hypocritical when you have to make deals like this?

POLLACK: Well, I think you're certainly right, Daryn, that this is going to add some confusion to exactly what the Bush administration does think. And you've heard people suggest that there are other areas where the Bush administration has not been quite so black and white, at least as their rhetoric suggests.

A willingness to sign a truce, a cease-fire agreement with a group like the MEK, which, as you point out, is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, is going to send some confusing signals to people.

KAGAN: And so, would you expect there will be more deals like this to come with other groups, just doing what you've got to do?

POLLACK: I honestly do not know, Daryn. I think this may well have been a one-off shot. There aren't too many other groups like this in Iraq, but, you know, if the occupation continues to go badly, if the reconstruction of Iraq continues to go badly, you might see others emerge. And under those circumstances, again, you might see the United States willing to strike temporary agreements if it is expedient.

I think the bigger issue here is: Has the United States created a problem for itself down the road in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq? There are a lot of Iraqis who aren't very happy about the People's Mujahedeen, because of their role in suppressing Iraq's own population on behalf of Saddam Hussein's behalf.

You know, it may be that this was politically expedient for the moment, but is this going to come back and bite us all later on?

KAGAN: We will be watching it, as you will. Ken Pollack from Washington. Ken, thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.