Nejat Society

The MEK children who speak out

The experiences of children of the Mujahedin-e Khalq have attracted a lot of attention in recent years, to the point that one of the most frequently repeated facts about human rights violations in the MEK deals with the issue of children.

Focusing on those who have written and spoken to certain media about their experiences as child soldiers or orphaned children in Europe and North America, you may find certain names. The experiences of children raised within or affected by the MEK are complex and often involve significant trauma.

The individuals like Hanif Azizi, Amir Yaghmai, Atefeh Sebdani, Parvin Hosseini, Ray Torabi, and Amin Golmaryami, are among those who have publicly shared their experiences. Their accounts often detail the challenges of growing up in the MEK environment, including separation from parents, indoctrination, and the psychological impact of the group’s activities.

These individuals have written about their experiences as child soldiers or as orphaned children in Europe and North America.

The experiences of these individuals, and others like them, are documented in various forms, including books, documentaries, memoirs, interviews, and journalistic reports. These accounts provide insights into the MEK’s internal dynamics, the treatment of children, and the long-term consequences of their involvement.

The MEK’s practices have been criticized by human rights organizations and former members. These criticisms often focus on the group’s authoritarian structure, the separation of families, and the use of children in political and military activities. The experiences of those who have left the MEK, particularly those who were children within the group, are crucial for understanding the impact of the MEK’s actions as a cult-like extremist group.

The mentioned-people have contributed to a growing body of literature and personal accounts that shed light on the MEK’s activities and their impact on individuals and families. Their stories are important for raising awareness about the MEK’s practices and the challenges faced by those who have been affected by the group.

In response, the group accuses its former child soldiers of being agents of the Iranian government to demonize the MEK.

However, the available sources do not provide credible evidence to support the MEK’s claims that former MEK child soldiers are Iranian agents. The sources, particularly those critical of the MEK, suggest that the MEK’s accusations are part of a broader strategy of demonization and propaganda, rather than being based on verifiable facts.

The MEK has been accused of various misconducts, including human rights abuses, and has been designated as a terrorist organization by several countries. The group’s history of violence, its controversial alliances, and the allegations of cult-like behavior all contribute to a lack of trust in its claims.

In recent years, children of Mujahed parents have testified in various ways about the violations of the rights of children who were involved with the MEK. Their testimonies are now part of the reliable and documented sources for investigating the crimes of MEK leaders. These testimonies are available for use in the trial of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi in a fair court.

Mazda Parsi

July 16, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Why the MEK is Not Considered a Viable Alternative

The MEK’s history and actions have led many to question its viability as a democratic alternative to the current Iranian regime. A significant factor is the MEK’s past association with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, which has deeply damaged its reputation within Iran. The group’s alliance with Iraq, which included military operations against Iranian forces, is viewed by many Iranians as an act of treason, destroying the MEK’s standing in its homeland.[1] This association is a major reason for the MEK’s unpopularity inside Iran, where it is often seen as a group that sided with Iran’s enemy during a time of national crisis.

According to the article “The Case for Redesignating the MEK: Learning from History” from Israel Hayom, numerous surveys, independent interviews, and media coverage indicate that inside Iran, the MEK is broadly discredited.[1] Many Iranians across generations associate the group with betrayal and violence. The article also states that the people of Iran overwhelmingly do not see the MEK as a viable or legitimate alternative to the current regime.

The MEK’s history of violence and its designation as a terrorist organization by various countries for periods also contribute to the skepticism surrounding its viability. The group was involved in armed conflict and targeted assassinations before the 1979 revolution and after, leading to its inclusion on terrorist lists by the U.S., Canada, EU, UK, and Japan for various periods between 1997 and 2013. While the MEK has since renounced violence, its past actions continue to raise concerns about its commitment to democratic principles.

Furthermore, the MEK has been accused of exhibiting cult-like characteristics, which further undermines its credibility as a democratic force. Critics have described the group as exhibiting traits of a “personality cult,” with reports of authoritarian control, enforced celibacy, and mandatory ideological re-education sessions. These practices are seen as incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society. The RAND Corporation report for the US government stated that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options,”[2]
The MEK’s internal structure and leadership also raise questions about its democratic credentials. The group’s leadership is centered around Maryam Rajavi, who is the current political leader and public face of the organization. Critics argue that the MEK’s focus on Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” and its insular nature do not align with the principles of a pluralistic democracy.

The article “Making Sense of the MEK” from the American Foreign Policy Council highlights the MEK’s plan for provisional rule in a half-year “transitional period” following the fall of Iran’s current government and leading to a democratic and secular Iran.[3] However, the article also notes that the group’s exclusionary nature and the distrust of other Iranian opposition elements raise questions about its ability to build a broad coalition and govern effectively.

In conclusion, the MEK’s past association with Saddam Hussein, its history of violence, its cult-like characteristics, its internal structure, all contribute to the perception that it is not a viable alternative to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mazda Parsi

Sources:
[1] The Case for Redesignating the MEK: Learning from History. [Israel Hayom]
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/04/11/the-case-for-redesignating-the-mek-learning-from-history/
[2] The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum. [RAND]
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG871.html
[3] Making Sense of the MEK. [American Foreign Policy Council]
https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/making-sense-of-the-mek

July 12, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Endless MEK’s anger towards New York Times. Why?

After the Israeli attacks on Iran, given the prospect of the so-called regime change in Iran, journalists are exploring the landscape of Iranian opposition groups. Dozens of news media have published articles analyzing the viable alternatives to the Iranian government. The majority of these investigative reports conclude that there is a lack of a unified and credible opposition for Iran.

The New York Times was also one of those news outlets that analyzed the main Iranian dissident groups stating that “Amid Attacks, Iran’s Exiled Opposition Remained Divided”. The article was very similar to that of Newsweek that “As Israel Eyes Regime Change, Iran’s Opposition Is Divisive and Divided.” In these articles, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Reza Pahlavi are regarded two of the main opposition groups against the Islamic Republic.

However, the MEK’s propaganda media slammed New York Times considering the article “crafted to undermine the MEK.”
Ali Safavi as a foreign affairs spokesman of the MEK is the one who is charged to write against the NY Times again. This is while what is told by the New York Times about the MEK and even about its adversary Reza Pahlavi was very similar to several other articles that has been recently published on the issue.

MEK’s Anger against NYTimes

The New York Times is generally considered a liberal-leaning newspaper. Investigative journalism is a form of journalism where reporters deeply research and expose information that is often concealed or difficult to access.
The New York Times, as the MEK’s own article states has so far published three investigative reports on the world inside the MEK in 2003, 2011 and 2020.

Although the MEK propaganda denounces these reports, they are still the most referred documents about the group, especially the one that was authored by Elizabeth Rubin in June 2003 after the US invasion to Iraq. Since then, the MEK’s grudge against the New York Times began. Perhaps the biggest media blow to the MEK was dealt by the New York Times.

Rubin titled her first-hand account of visiting Camp Ashraf Iraq, “The Cult of Rajavi.” Rubin described the life at Camp Ashraf as a “fictional world of female worker bees,” asserting the group possessed absolutely no support within Iran.
Through over 2 past decades, “The Cult of Rajavi” of Elizabeth Rubin has been one of the most reliable articles for the journalists and academics because very few journalists could enter Camp Ashraf so far.

Her next article on the MEK was published in July 2011 after the group’s well-paid lobbying campaign was enhanced to remove the group from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the State Department.

In the article titled “An Iranian Cult and its American Friends”, Elizabeth Rubin warned about the sponsorship of the US high-profiles for the MEK as a terrorist cult.

In February 2020, the history repeated itself for the MEK, another NYTimes correspondent, Partrick Kingsley, was allowed to take a tour at Ashraf 3, the MEK’s headquarters in Albania. Although the MEK made efforts to picture the gesture of a democratic group for Kingsley, he found out that something was wrong behind the scenes that the MEK had prepared for him.

He published his investigative report under the title, “Highly Secretive Iranian Rebels Are Holed Up in Albania. They Gave Us a Tour.” Kingsley stated that depending on whom you ask, the People’s Jihadists are Iran’s government-in-waiting or a duplicitous terrorist cult that forbids sexual thoughts. Thus, besides the members inside the camp, the NYTimes reporter interviewed a number of former members of the group to know “What are they doing in Albania?”

Defectors of the MEK –who were interviewed by Rubin and Kingsley “to deeply research and expose information that is often concealed or difficult to access about the MEK”—are considered as agents of the Iranian government by Ali Safavi and so are the NYTimes journalists who added their narratives to their investigative reports.

Kingley’s article was ironically ended with the express of ignorance of Ashraf residents about the whereabouts of the MEK’s disappeared leader, Massoud Rajavi. After publishing the article, Kingsley posted further information on his X account about the secretive cult-like atmosphere at Ashraf 3 where members are not allowed to speak freely.

What does the NYTimes say about the MEK now?

The NYTimes’s recent article on Iranian oppositions, including decentralized activist groups, Reza Pahlavi and Maryam Rajavi, suggests that none of these groups have the capacity to bring regime change in Iran.
In particular, about the MEK, the NYTimes cites from a university professor: “The MEK has next-to-zero popularity in Iran. In my scholarly judgment, the MEK has more supporters in Washington, than in Iran.”
And, that’s it! This was what Ali Safavi calls “intervention” while other journalists and academics state similar opinions about Iranian dissidents. The followings were extracted out of many articles and reports on the very topic:

Jacobin:
While some members of the Iranian diaspora support exiled opposition figures such as Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi, these individuals lack meaningful support within Iran and are unlikely to serve as viable alternatives to the current regime. In the absence of a unified and credible domestic opposition, alternative strategies for facilitating change must be followed.

Newsweek:
While both Pahlavi and the MeK claim to seek establishment of a secular and democratic Iran, they often criticize one another. The MeK, spawned as a leftist rebel group in 1965, has a legacy of conducting attacks during the reign of Pahlavi’s father before the Islamic Revolution, which the group initially supported.

Elnet.uk:
The NCRI is part of this rebranding, presenting a more politically palatable front for the MEK’s goal of regime change in Iran. Despite rebranding efforts, the MEK remains unpopular within Iran due to its former support for Saddam Hussein and perceived Marxist, extremist elements.

Eurasian Times:
However, in Albania, the MEK is struggling to hold on to its own members, who have begun to defect. No strategic analyst thinks that the MEK has the capacity or support within Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Abc News:
The NCRI has notable supporters among traditional Iran hawks in the U.S., with figures including former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton and others having spoken at their events in recent years.
The NCRI has called for the establishment of a democratic and secular republic in Iran. The MEK — and by extension the NCRI — were recognized as terrorist organizations by the U.S. until 2012.

The Economic Times:
Apart from Pahlavi’s monarchists, the main opposition faction outside Iran is the People’s Mujahideen Organisation, also known as the MEK or MKO. A revolutionary faction in the 1970s, it lost a power struggle after the shah was toppled.
Many Iranians have not forgiven it for then siding with Iraq during the stalemated war of 1980-88 and rights groups have accused it of abuses at its camps and of cult-like behaviour, both of which it denies.

Jerusalem Post:
While some members of the Iranian diaspora support exiled opposition figures such as Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi, these individuals lack meaningful support within Iran and are unlikely to serve as viable alternatives to the current regime.
Ali Safavi has no defensible response to the arguments of the journalists about the unpopularity of the MEK among Iranians. He never denies that the MEK pays hefty sums to buy its American supporters. About the ban on marriage in the MEK he refers to an NYTimes article dated to 1996! The only frequent argument used by the MEK propaganda and namely Ali Safavi is that any journalist who criticizes the MEK is an agent of the Iranian government. The journalists of the NY Times are condemned more harshly because they have revealed more steadfast evidence about inside the MEK.

Mazda Parsi

July 9, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Regime change in Iran? MEK starts lobbying in the US, here’s what it aims for

The Iranian opposition in exile has begun lobbying in the US to gain the support of President Donald Trump.
And to accomplish this, a lobbying company close to the Republicans, called “Special Guests Publicity”, has been engaged, which has connections to Trump’s inner circle.

This lobbying company has agreed to help promote the views of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in the United States media.

According to the filings, NCRI, the diplomatic arm of the exiled opposition group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), has contracted with Special Guests Publicity LLC, a PR company based in North Carolina.

The Trump administration has reportedly been negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran, having previously withdrawn from the Obama-era agreement. After threatening Iran with air strikes, Donald Trump turned to diplomacy to seek a negotiated solution with Tehran but failed to discourage Israel from taking unilateral military action.

While Special Guests Publicity’s main client is NCRI, the money for the consultancy works actually came from two little-known companies in the UK, Media Strategy Consulting Ltd (MSC) and Globeevents Consulting Ltd (GC).

Media Strategy Consulting claims on its website that it is a non-profit organization made up of journalists, lawyers, bankers, MBAs, lobbyists, speechwriters and marketing experts, although it does not name anyone specific. The company’s former director was Seyed Agha Shaheen Pour Ghobadian Zadeh, who was previously a registered lobbyist for the European Union.

Its current director is Eli Farham, who also created the website for Globeevents Consulting and a host of other Iranian organizations. In a 2014 press release about the persecution of Christians in Iran, she listed Media Strategy Consulting as her organization.

“Special Guests Publicity” was founded by Gerald McGlothlin, a publicist and media producer who is also the CEO of CleanTV. On its website, Special Guests Publicity has also promoted the Chinese anti-communist group Shen Yun, which has been criticized as a cult by some. Shen Yun is also close to the right-wing news website The Epoch Times.

Pamfleti

July 9, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The NYTimes: the MEK has almost zero popularity in Iran

Following the Israeli invasion of Iran, claims of regime change in Iran have intensified, and journalists and analysts have tried to address various aspects of the issue.

In a recent article, the New York Times discussed the issue of regime change in Iran and various possibilities for a so-called replacement. As expected, the name of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) is also included in the list of existing options.

In the article, the MEK is introduced as a group that was once recognized by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization and is accused of being a cult by former members. The author of the article emphasizes that the MEK has tried to restore its credibility in recent years.

The NYTimes reporter sees the MEK’s siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war as the dark spot in the MEK’s past, the act that many Iranians considered treason.

Reviewing the MEK’s background the author states: The group’s ideology, which began as a blend of Islamism and Marxism, had begun to center around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Former members have said they were told to renounce marriage and divorce their spouses to prove their commitment to them.

The author of the article explains that representatives of the MEK, who are mainly based in Albania, and Maryam Rajavi did not respond to requests for an interview, and points to Maryam Rajavi’s recent claim regarding Israel’s attack on Iran which according to her “represents the beginning of a critical new chapter, both in Iran’s internal crisis and in the broader dynamics of the region.”

The NYTimes’ article has examined whether the MEK could be a factor in “broader dynamics” in the region. In this regard, he cites the MEK media’s claim: “Ms. Rajavi’s official platform now calls for a secular republic, gender equality, and a non-nuclear Iran.”

It also acknowledges that prominent American politicians have received tens of thousands of dollars to speak at the group’s conferences to promote this cause.

The NYTimes resumes the topic of the MEK with a key statement citing from Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University.: “The problem is that the MEK has almost zero popularity in Iran.”

Referring to the vast number of MEK paid supporters in the US government, Hashemi points out the ironic truth: ” It has more supporters in Washington, D.C., than in Iran.”

July 7, 2025 0 comments

Nejat Publications

Nejat Newsletter No.126

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

1. Conference of Nejat Society Albania in Pogradec
Nejat Society Albania, held a conference in Pogradec, Albania to convey the voices of mothers and families of members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The conference was organized through the efforts and interest of Ms. Eshpersa, head of the Association of Intellectual Women in Albania.

2. The Incredible Disappearing of the MEK
Michael Rubin, an American journalist critical of the Islamic Republic and a staunch opponent of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), believes that Israel’s attacks on Iran and its plan to change for regime change are the causes for the destruction of the MEK.

3. Eurasia Times: MEK has no capacity or support inside Iran
To be honest, Israel’s so-called preemptive strikes on Iran show that Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his government’s “Initiation Doctrine.” According to Netanyahu’s rhetoric to the Iranian nation while dropping bombs on Iranian citizens, he wants to change the Iranian regime and claims to stand with the Iranian nation.

4. International Law, the Silence of the West and the Paradox of the Iranian Opposition (MEK)
In recent decades, the world has faced a dramatic shift in the balance of power, where the permanent conflicts in the Middle East have served as a testing ground for major geo political interests. In this complex mosaic, the Iranian op position MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), with its contradictory history and alliances, occupies a special and worrying place.

5. Newsweek: MEK cult lack any significant domestic constituency
As Israel claims that its unprovoked attack on Iran is aimed at regime change, analysts wonder which opposition group may be able to take over Iran after the so-called regime change. In this case, the MEK and the Monarchists are the two main oppositions to be analyzed.

6. My Aslan… Come Home
Soraya Abdollahi is the mother of one of the MEK hostages. Her son Amir Aslan Hassanzadeh was recruited by the MEK agents when he was very young. Ms. Abdollahi has been endeavoring to free Amir-Aslan from the hands of the MEK leaders, for over two decades. She has taken every kind of legal action to call on the international community for the release of their son.

7. About Nejat Society
Nejat Society consists of former members of the Mojahedin e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO, Rajavi cult) and the families of the present members Nejat Society aims to: inform as widely as
possible about the real cultic nature of the MEK…

To view the pdf file click here

July 7, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Rudy Giuliani slammed by public opinion for embracing the MEK

Maryam Rajavi was prepared with an interim government when the ceasefire was brokered!

While the US president, Donald Trump announced the ceasefire between Isarel and Iran on the early hours of June 24th, 2025, Rudy Giuliani, claimed on his X account that “The NCRI and the MEK under Maryam Rajavi is prepared with an interim government for Iran”.

The former mayor of New York City went further and claimed that Maryam Rajavi had pledged to an election in months! This ardent supporter of the MEK said that the long-life president of the NCRI would bring “a non-nuclear, democratic Iran with freedom of religion and freedom for women and a 10 Point Program to create a modern liberal democracy.”

As the Israel Iran war was almost over, both leaders of the US and Israel claim that they do not seek regime change in Iran. No uprising happened in Iran as Iranians were united in opposing the foreign military invasion against their territory. Thus, how Maryam Rajavi was prepared to run her so-called “interim government”?

Rudy Giuliani is one of the numerous American former politicians who are on the MEK’s pay roll. According to the US Department of Treasury investigations, he is one of the high-profile officials who have met with or received payments to speak publicly about removing the MEK from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The less-than-fifty-word post written by Giuliani was seriously slammed by the X users addressing him with respectful or offensive comments, trying to enlighten him about the truth of the MEK.

The comments included warnings about certain characteristics of the MEK as a cult-like organization with communist ideals. Although the MEK’s cyber army from Albania made efforts to praise Giuliani’s stance, the adverse comments of angry users flooded their cheerful applauds for the MEK’s paid supporter.
The Iranian and non-Iranian X users tried to enlighten former America’s Mayor on several facts about the MEK:

MEK’s anti American attitudes

They asked Giuliani not to promote radical #MEKterrorists who have taken American lives referring to the assassination of 6 American military and business men by the MEK agents during the 1970s in Ira.
They supported the hostage taking of American diplomats in the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attack against US civilians.
Thus, Any member of the US Congress or administration supporting the group or marketing their propaganda is acting against American interests and national security.

Marxist Islamist extremist ideology

The MEK’s original ideology is an unstable mix of Marxism, Islamism. Is that truly the future of Iran?

Forced Hijab

In the community led by Maryam Rajavi, women are forced to wear hijab. Users say that she can’t even free herself, yet claims to fight for a free Iran with religious freedom. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Child soldiers

The case of child soldiers recruited by the MEK is a new aspect of the group atrocities that has come to attentions in recent years. The group leaders separated families from their children to radicalize them when they grew up to teen age. The child soldiers of the MEK were trained and used in military operations. Critics think that the MEK leaders should be tried for indoctrination of Iranian children, into an armed extremist cult.

Hostages at Ashraf 3

According to the audience of Giuliani’s post, members of the MEK are poor and elderly people who are stuck in a delusional authoritarian cult at Ashraf 3, a remote camp in the village of Manez, north of Tirana, Albania.
Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan will not bring a democracy, not for her own followers, let alone the Iranian people.

Zero support in Iran

This isn’t a group with real support inside Iran. They’re viewed by actual Iranians as cultlike, terrorist, foreign-backed, and illegitimate. The Iranian people will never allow their country to be occupied again by an extremist terrorist cult.
The users ask Giuliani not to speak on behalf of 90 million Iranians, to stop pretending your opinion carries that weight.

Paid Supporters

The majority of comments share the idea that US supporters of the MEK are motivated by the money the group pay them. A user suggests that the money they pay them comes from the social welfare western governments pay MEK members residing their countries. The money is actually meant for medicine and diapers for these elderlies.
American users believe that the MEK pay for their lawmakers speaking engagements and that should stop.

Appeal to relist them

Users mention Donald Trump to ask him to make the USA and the world safer, by relisting the terrorist Islamist-Marxist MEK and NCRI on the U.S. terrorist list. They say that it’s time to put them back where they belong to and to investigate the dirty money the MEK has been paying to corrupt U.S. politicians, including Trump’s former friend, Rudy Giuliani.

Iranians do not want outsider’s force

“If your plan for Iran is to hand it over to a group hated by Iranians and distrusted by Americans, that’s not liberation. That’s a disaster waiting to happen.”
The Iranian people will never allow their country to be occupied by an outside force. It doesn’t need another imported savior. And it certainly doesn’t need another failed foreign project dressed up as “liberation.”
Iranians should decide for their future. History has already shown what happens when outsiders force regime change: In 2003, Saddam Hussein was toppled by the outsiders. The consequence was the rebirth of ISIS. Libya was allegedly liberated from Gaddafi in 2011, the country was left is anarchy. The US forces occupied Afghanistan for 20 years and finally, Taliban was back in power.

Although the MEK claims to be an independent secular democratic opposition to the Iranian government but it is mainly promoted by its paid supporters. Maryam Rajavi routinely visits western retired figures to buy their support. Giuliani promote her so-called interim government as soon as tensions escalated between Iran and Israel. To Iranians, neither war nor ceasefire mean that outsiders can push a hated cult of personality with violent background to acheive power in Iran.

Mazda Parsi

June 30, 2025 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

On Maryam Rajavi’s Welcome to the Ceasefire and Reiteration of the Third Option

Following the announcement of the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Maryam Rajavi, the surviving leader of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), called the ceasefire “a step forward for the third option.”

According to her own claim, Maryam Rajavi has been proposing the “third option” since 2006. She reiterated this claim last week in a hall she had rented at the European Parliament with some people in attendance.

What is the third option?

The third option, according to the MEK, is the only option for confronting the Iranian government. The other two options are what the MEK refers to as “appeasement and foreign military attack.” Maryam Rajavi says that appeasement –negotiations with the Islamic Republic– has only served to strengthen Tehran and develop its nuclear program. The MEK also claims that they do not support foreign military intervention. They say war is not the answer to the “Iran problem.”
According to Maryam Rajavi, the MEK’s third option involves “democratic” change by Iranian “people” and the “resistance”. The term “resistance” refers to the MEK and its political front, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
Presenting the third option confronts Maryam Rajavi with at least one fundamental question: How can the “Iranian Resistance” guarantee that this option is democratic?

MEK Seeking Legitimacy

The MEK has never been seen as the legitimate resistance of the Iranian people. This is because they lack credibility and trust in the eyes of Iranians. The contradictions in their strategies and actions contribute to their discrediting, and as a result, they not only lose their legitimacy but also appear hypocritical. Therefore, it is difficult for the MEK to gain the support of Iranians and the international community and to convince them of the effectiveness of their ideas.
The little support the MEK receives among Western politicians seems to be based on the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The reality is that they provide the “right” answers for politicians seeking to justify their radical, violent policy against Tehran.

The MEK’s violent past and terrorist attacks undermine their claim of legitimacy based on their past struggles, and their reluctance to respond to criticism exacerbates this. They have never responded to criticisms for their collaboration with Saddam Hussein and killing their own compatriots in terrorist attacks. The MEK leaders are generally seen as short-sighted and despotic.

Legitimacy or charisma of the Rajavis?

Maryam’s charisma, especially in the international community, is effective to a certain extent. She presents herself as a representative of peace, freedom, and democracy. An appearance that would not seem typical for the leader of a terrorist group. However, the special and unattainable position that both she and Massoud have in the organization completely undermines their claim to be democratically elected, and thus reinforces the fact that the MEK is a cult of personality.
Although the MEK’s political institutions have some international momentum, they lack credibility. The so-called National Council of Resistance was supposed to be run on democratic principles, but the leadership—Maryam Rajavi as the president of the council—has far more power than all the council members. The structure of the council is absolutely authoritarian.
The MEK cannot prove its democratic intentions simply by declaring them through words. They must prove that the principles they claim to uphold apply to them as well, but to date they have failed to prove this.

The obvious failure of the third option

The MEK ideology has failed to gain popular support. Their radical actions, both at the organizational and external relations levels, prevent political reform, and as a result, they lose potential supporters rather than reaching a wider audience.
Their totalitarianism, which bases their arguments and actions on black and white, completely right or completely wrong, completely good or completely bad, contributes to their political isolation.
The contradictions in the MEK’s words and actions have led to their failure to gain legitimacy. They continue to struggle for recognition. Despite more than forty years of talking about the imminent overthrow of the Iranian government, their future remains uncertain and complex.

The Problem with the third option

The third option is problematic. It is presented as an answer to the “Iran problem,” but it raises more questions than it answers. The third option promises a lot, but it is difficult to understand how to implement it and how to reconcile it with reality.
Contrary to the severe and complex problems that the MEK claims Iran is facing, their solution is oversimplified and seems impossible to achieve. They give black and white ultimatums. They are caught up in good or bad, right or wrong thinking. In the real world, nothing is “either or.” The world has many shades of gray.
When Maryam Rajavi promises to realize her dream for a future Iran through third option, she is denying reality. The “Iranian resistance” is not real. The MEK’s legitimacy in the Iranian public is not real. The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has failed to gain legitimacy, and consequently the third option proposed by Maryam Rajavi is meaningless.

Mazda Parsi

June 28, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Mossad-Backed MEK’s Footprint Exist in Tehran Explosions

On June 15, 2025, a series of bombings across Tehran shook the city, endangering the lives of ordinary citizens and evoking memories of the actions of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) during the 1980s. The bombings were seen as a clear escalation in the ongoing violence, drawing attention to the MEK’s involvement in terrorist activities in Iran.

The Islamic Republic claims that the MEK, which failed to garner popular support by promoting concepts such as “rebel cells” and “uprisings,” has now aligned itself with foreign powers and warmongers. The MEK, which once relied on Saddam Hussein for support, is now believed to be working with Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, to carry out operations in Iran, including the recent bombings.

Following earlier attacks on Iran’s nuclear scientists, where several were killed, U.S. officials confirmed to NBC News that the attacks on the scientists were carried out by the MEK, which was financed, trained, and armed by Israeli intelligence. The latest wave of violence—targeting civilians through bombings—continues this pattern of terrorist activities.

Iran’s government stresses that the MEK, as a group of exiled Iranian nationals familiar with the language, culture, and operational tactics, is an ideal tool for Mossad to execute covert operations like the recent bombings in Tehran. The MEK’s role in spying on Iran’s nuclear program and its involvement in the assassination of Iranian scientists have been documented by various investigative journalists.

Kevin Jon Heller, an international law and security professor at the University of Copenhagen, analyzed the NBC News article and stated: “According to the Terrorist Bombing Convention, ‘states cannot be terrorists’ only as long as bombings are carried out by ‘military forces’ of a state; bombings conducted by a civilian intelligence service like Mossad are not exempt from the definition of terrorism under the convention. Therefore, Mossad’s actions in using the MEK to kill Iranian nuclear scientists qualify as terrorism.”

In recent years, bombings in public spaces—aimed at destabilising independent governments—have often been attributed to ISIS, an entity created by Western powers and their regional allies. However, long before the rise of ISIS and al-Qaeda, it was the MEK that pioneered such acts of terror in Iran and the broader Middle East. For this reason, many consider Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the MEK, as the architect of these types of assassinations in Iran and the greater West Asia region.
The Alliance of Maryam Rajavi, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Reza Pahlavi / WANA News Agency

WANA News Agency

June 23, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

International Law, the Silence of the West and the Paradox of the Iranian Opposition (MEK)

In recent decades, the world has faced a dramatic shift in the balance of power, where the permanent conflicts in the Middle East have served as a testing ground for major geopolitical interests. In this complex mosaic, the Iranian opposition MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), with its contradictory history and alliances, occupies a special and worrying place. Moreover, the stance of Western countries, especially the United States of America, has served as a catalyst for the escalation of tensions and the further destabilization of the region.

International Laws and Two-Faced Standards

Today, more than ever, it is essential to recall and demand respect for international law. These laws are the foundation on which the post-World War II world order was built and are intended to protect the sovereignty of states, guarantee human rights, and prohibit arbitrary interference in the internal affairs of other states.
However, it seems that for some countries these laws are just paper. Israel’s interference in the internal affairs of other states, especially Iran, is a clear violation of these laws. And while this is happening, countries that should be the guarantors of international justice, such as the US, remain indifferent. Their silence is more than a neutral position – it is a tacit approval, an invisible hand that gives Israel the green light to act according to its own strategic interests.

MEK and the Paradox of Alliances: “The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend”

In this complex scene, a non-state actor with strong political and propaganda influence emerges: the Iranian opposition MEK. Once a revolutionary organization that claimed to represent the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, today the MEK has transformed into a blind instrument of foreign interests, completely estranged from any connection with the pubic will.
The phrase that they seem to follow meticulously – “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – has become the philosophy of their political action. Considering the Iranian regime as their enemy, the MEK has chosen to openly cooperate with Israel – a state that is in direct conflict with Iran and that has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians over the past decades.
This act is more than political betrayal – it is a denial of any national feeling, a collaboration with a force that not only threatens Iran, but also contributes to the destabilization of the entire region. The MEK is no longer the opposition. They have become ideological mercenaries who represent no one but the interests of those who want division, weakness, and chaos in the Middle East.

Israeli Fear and Strategic Hypocrisy

Israel today expresses its fear that Iran could develop nuclear weapons. This fear has become the justification for attacks, sabotage, constant threats, and a strategy filled with military paranoia. But this justification does not stand up to the truth: Iran, despite all the accusations, has never directly threatened any country with nuclear weapons. On the contrary, Iran has remained within the framework of reserved diplomacy and has not undertaken aggression against its neighbors.
Is it right for a country like Israel, which itself has not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and which possesses uncontrolled nuclear arsenals, to demand control and transparency from another country? This is pure hypocrisy. Every country has the legitimate right to defend itself and to develop technology for civilian and defense purposes. Nothing in international law denies Iran this right.

The Real Danger: Not Iran, but Policies of Isolation and Destabilization

If we must speak of a real threat to regional stability, then the finger should be pointed not at Iran, but at isolationist strategies, unilateral interventions, and irresponsible alliances. The threat from Israel, if it exists, is a threat that stems from its own foreign policy, from the fear that comes when a state does not accept coexistence but follows the logic of total domination.
While the MEK rubs its hands in anticipation of some major conflict that could bring them to power through a violent overthrow, the Iranian people remain double victims: of an authoritarian regime and of an opposition linked to foreign interests. Sadly, this opposition has lost any moral right to represent the nation it claims to save.

Conclusion: The Need for Justice and Diplomatic Caution

The world needs a sincere return to the principles of international law. States cannot support violent groups that act as temporary allies against their strategic rivals. Nor can they remain silent in the face of direct interference in the sovereignty of other states.
Israel must stop the logic of aggression and fear. The MEK must understand that cooperating with a power that has bloody hands in Gaza will not make it more acceptable in the eyes of the Iranian people. And the US must wake up from its strategic silence and play the role of peacemaker rather than silent supporter of conflicts.
Only then can the region have a future with less blood, more respect, and more justice.

Aldo Sulollari

June 23, 2025 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts