History teaches that you can't appease dictators. This is simply seen by them as a sign of extremely despised weakness and a lever to extract even more objectives, a secret agenda or territory?
Which eventually has to be stopped, usually by military means and much greater loss of life and treasure; than that which would be sacrificed if we refused to appease any dictator; but rather, sent a midnight cruise missile through their front door, when verifiable intell confirmed; they were in residence.
Imagine Iraq today, e.g., if our first response to the Butcher of Bagdad's refusal to allow a complete and unhindered search for; the non existent WMD's; had simply been followed by the execution of the dictator; and his equally evil brood, by the prescribed means?
Indeed, it would have been a far lessor evil than the imposed sanctions, which simply led to quite massive and almost entirely avoidable child mortality, which could have been almost completely avoided if the oil revenue had continue to flow into govt coffers and fund essential public health; replete with mandated routine inoculation?
I mean, given the location of the Palace, the destruction and "collateral" damage could have been completely limited to that site. Instead, we had to have a multi trillion dollar war and quite massive loss of life and destruction.
The MUCH lessor of two evils, would have been the sanctioned execution of the dictator and the very small inner circle of evil, that controlled a sovereign state.
We simply cannot continue to allow the wholesale destruction of civilian populations, just so an intensely evil tyrant and his/her equally evil cohorts, [small inner circle,] can continue to wield power? The lesson of history, is that nobody learns the lessons of history. Rhrosty.

Ah Islam, what an adornment to humanity. And the yanks, what a pack of butterballs; god help you if you rely on those milksops.

The sooner Israel deals with Iran the better.

"Imagine Iraq today, e.g., if our first response to the Butcher of Bagdad's refusal to allow a complete and unhindered search for; the non existent WMD's; had simply been followed by the execution of the dictator; and his equally evil brood, by the prescribed means?"

I thought they tried this, 2 cruise missiles into a Baghdad farm house to try and assassinate Saddam 24hrs before the "deadline to surrender". Happy to be corrected - saw this on TV so must be true :)

MORE MOUTHPEICES SUPPORTING MEK

US politicians must service their constituencies - this largely American domestic political issue is an example.

The MEK issue appears to be an odd US orchestrated example of 'how the world policeman makes a former terrorist organisation legitimate'.

People should realise that public posturing between former CIA Directors and the State Department indicates its an primarily an issue for public consumption. CIA and State almost always resolve issues behind closed doors when they're serioius - and with Whitehouse or NSC staffers at those meetings arbitrating.

The issue is largely put-on to appease anti-Iranian Regime interests in America including America's substantial Iranian-American minority in Califormia - many of whom revere the late Shah and look to his offspring to lead a future Iran.

America shouldn't make the mistake of changing the Iranian regime from Islamic-Nationalist to a secular and absolute Monarchy - in short a dictatorship. The US already tried that and the result was the 1979 Revolution which changed the Middle East for the worse.

In addition the MEK issue is tied up with the ongoing US information campaign against (nuclear in waiting) Iran. I see this last reason as more legitimate.

Pete