Page 2 – Nejat Society

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Washington’s Double Standard on Terrorism Betrays the Spirit of Liberty

The U.S. government says its “war on terror” protects freedom. In practice, every new intervention narrows the perimeter of freedom at home. The language of confronting evil abroad has become a cover for expanding state power, channeling public money to defense contractors, and normalizing surveillance that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. The pattern is familiar: the more expansive the mission overseas, the more elastic the constraints on government at home.

The contradiction is starkest in Gaza. U.S. officials condemn terrorism but continue to arm and shield an ally whose campaign has killed tens of thousands and devastated the territory. Humanitarian agencies report mass displacement, widespread hunger, and a crippled health system. In the diplomatic arena, Washington has repeatedly vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire even as it advances fresh weapons packages.

This moral blind spot is not confined to one conflict. During the Cold War, Washington funneled support to the Afghan mujahideen – a decision memorialized in official records – only to confront successor movements in later decades. In Syria, Kurdish-led forces became the principal U.S. partner against ISIS even as NATO ally Turkey labeled affiliated groups terrorists and pressed military campaigns against them. Definitions shift with alliances; the underlying violence does not.

The Iranian exile group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) offers another example of strategic elasticity. The group’s history includes attacks that killed U.S. citizens in 1970s Tehran, a fact acknowledged by U.S. government sources. Decades later, after an intense and well-funded lobbying effort, the State Department removed the MEK from its Foreign Terrorist Organization list in 2012.

Endless war feeds on fear, and fear consolidates power. Drone warfare was sold as precise and surgical, yet senior commanders themselves warned that killing civilians can be counterproductive – the “insurgent math” that every innocent death creates new enemies. The broader empirical record is mixed, but even the optimistic studies concede a pattern of backlash risks and strategic tradeoffs that should caution against routine reliance on force.

Sanctions are often marketed as a humane alternative to war, yet U.N. experts have repeatedly warned that sweeping unilateral measures punish entire populations, triggering shortages and eroding basic rights – effects difficult to square with a professed commitment to human dignity. If policy aims include stability and liberty, collective punishment is a poor instrument.

Meanwhile, the political economy of intervention hardens. The world’s major arms producers reported another rise in revenues in 2023, with U.S. firms accounting for roughly half of global sales – momentum propelled by ongoing conflicts and procurement cycles that outlast headlines. The incentives are aligned for more of the same.

If opposing terrorism were truly the goal, policy would prioritize ending the interventions that nurture it. That would mean halting arms transfers that fuel atrocities, rejecting collective punishment via sweeping sanctions, and abandoning the conceit that liberty can be delivered from 30,000 feet. Security grows from peace, commerce, and diplomacy – not from empire.

The libertarian tradition teaches that freedom and empire cannot coexist. Every bomb dropped abroad echoes at home as expanded surveillance authorities and normalized exceptions to the rule of law. To defend the American republic, policymakers should discard the imperial reflex that keeps creating enemies and rediscover a foreign policy consistent with the spirit of liberty.

Ultimately, reclaiming liberty demands moral courage – the courage to admit that power cannot purchase peace, that domination cannot deliver safety, and that genuine security begins with restraint. When the nation learns once again to measure strength not by the size of its arsenal but by the integrity of its principles, it will rediscover the freedom it claims to defend.

Sophia Gonzalez of AntiWar.com

November 8, 2025 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Emotional Dependency of MEK Children on their Arms

The recruitment and use of child soldiers by any armed group is a violation of international law, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts. The recruitment and use of child soldiers by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has been documented by human rights organizations and international bodies, including Human Rights Watch and the United Nations.

These reports detail instances of children being subjected to military training, ideological indoctrination and participation in operations against Iran. The practice is a clear violation of international law, which defines a child soldier as any person under 18 years of age who is part of any regular and irregular armed force or group in any capacity.

The MEK has consistently denied these documents, claiming that individuals under 18 were not involved in combat and that minors in their camps were there for educational purposes!
However, testimonies from former child soldiers of the MEK and independent investigations contradict the denials, providing evidence of the systematic use of children in their ranks.

Amir Yaghmai, former child soldier of the MEK is one of the first individuals who testified against the MEK. He was of the four children of Mujahed parents whose story was documented in Sara Moin’s documentary, Children of Camp Ashraf.

Moin’s documentary highlights the experience of Amir as a child soldier, detailing his life within the MEK’s cult-like structure and the psychological impact on his upbringing. Amir also began writing his story on X social network.

This part of his memoirs indicates how the MEK child soldiers were manipulated by the group authorities and eventually emotionally dependent on the arms and ammunitions of the group’s army. Based on Amir’s testimony, when the US military wanted to disarm the MEK in 2003, arms had been so vital to the MEK members that a female member (a mother) handed her child soldier son to the American Colonel in exchange for the arms!

Amir Yaghmai writes:
“A female commander named Leila – who had sent me to Iraq from Paris – came forward, dragged one of the teenagers towards the colonel and shouted: ‘Please! Take my son, but don’t take our tanks! We need them for freedom!’ The boy, Amin, found himself between the Mujahideen and the Americans, looking at his mother and the Americans in amazement, not knowing which way to go. It was a strange scene, beyond this world as we know it.”

Amir quotes another child soldier named Hanif who cried at the American Colonel, “Peel my skin me alive! Break my teeth! But don’t take my tank!”
Child soldiers of extremist groups like the MEK develop a profound emotional dependency on their arms due to the complex interplay of psychological mind control. After years of isolation at Camp Ashraf, weapon had become a source of security in highly insecure and threatening situations. The MEK’s ideology always glorified armed struggle, imbuing weapons with a sacred or heroic significance, with had been deepened the Child soldier’s emotional bonds with their arms. This dependency made disarmament an extremely challenging for MEK members in particular child soldiers.

Mazda Parsi.

November 5, 2025 0 comments

Massoud Rajavi

The Rajavis’ illusions against the rationalism of Gen Z

Many economic, political, and social activists are talking about the potential benefits of Generation Z. This social group is considered both as a driving force in the economy and business and as a political force for change. However, the debatable fact is that Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, as the leaders of a group of which average age of members is over 50, are trying to bring themselves closer to Generation Z.

Sociologists classify people born in different periods into different groups based on fundamental changes in lifestyle. They call those born between 1964 and 1981 “Generation X,” those born between 1982 and 1997 “Generation Y” or millennials, and those born between 1997 and 2010 “Generation Z” or the Internet generation.

Research shows that Generation Z is committed to personal freedom. Their behavior falls into the liberal category in classical orderings. Masoud Rajavi, the disappeared leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has recently called Generation Z as “the central core of future uprisings”, and Maryam Rajavi has lined up a number of surviving children of Mujahed parents in her recent propaganda shows boasting of the support of the younger generation of Iran (!).

It is necessary for the leaders of the MEK to learn more about certain concepts and words like Generation Z. Massoud Rajavi, as the creator of Rajavi’s personality cult, must understand that although Generation Z seems to be selfish and to consider themselves superior to others, they are so skillful in tolerating and accepting different and opposing beliefs, races, social levels, genders, and tastes. To the extent that some sociologists call them a generation of rationalism, pluralism, or plurality of beliefs. While tolerating others’ opinion is one of the missing concepts in the MEK.

The leaders of the MEK should note that trustworthy researches on the characteristics of Generation Z in various countries show that this generation has a great appetite for understanding the situation and the forces behind events. They do not easily accept media discourse. Therefore, Maryam Rajavi’s performance of forced rituals with a large group of women wearing forced hijab at Camp Ashraf 3, simply gives a glimpse of the real behind-the-scenes of her gathering with young people in European cities.

Unlike the reality of the MEK, where there is no room for dialogue and its members are suppressed for the slightest dissenting opinion or personal thought, Generation Z expresses their feelings easily, and believes in dialogue to resolve conflicts and improve the world. Members of this generation believe that change is achieved through dialogue. Common goals and motivations for doing great and new things bring them together, and they analyze and make decisions based on the data they collect from their communication networks.

Unlike the internal relations of the MEK, which are based on constant self-criticism and severe self-censorship, Generation Z usually avoids self-censorship. They present their demands without confrontation and conservatism, and express their opinions about family members, classmates, colleagues, friends, managers, and the government fearlessly.

Due to the historical record of the MEK, especially under the ruling of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the MEK is highly unlikely to influence Generation Z in Iran. The MEK is known above all as a destructive cult with a history of extremism, terrorism and collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. This criminal record has deprived the group of the support of the majority of the Iranian people, including the younger generations.

The MEK’s strict ideology, internal dictatorship, and numerous coercions in personal life have separated them from the demands of a generation that seeks freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and democratic values. Like their counterparts around the world, Iranian Generation Z is known for its strong emphasis on individual rights, free access to information, and a desire to create change based on modern democratic principles.

The past and present behaviors of the MEK, including its cult-like and authoritarian internal structure, and its historical collaboration with foreign powers hostile to Iran such as Saddam and Israel, are considered counter-values to Generation Z.

Thus, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi lack the necessary ability to attract the support of a generation that has critical thinking and believes in individual freedoms. The MEK leaders, with their organization’s problematic past, have nothing to say against the rationalism of Generation Z. This generation does not allow Massoud Rajavi’s fabricated, outdated ideology, which has the most illusory content, to emerge.

Mazda Parsi

November 3, 2025 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s controlled messaging over open dialogue

Maryam Rajavi’s public appearances and interactions with the media have been largely controlled and strategic, primarily focusing on presenting the narrative the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) as a pro-democracy opposition to Iranian government.

There is no publicly available record or credible report of Maryam Rajavi having participated in a formal, unscripted debate with an opposing point of view or undergoing a challenging, in-depth interview with independent journalists where she is pressed on controversial aspects of her organization’s activities over the past four decades.

Her media engagements typically include prepared statements, speeches at rallies, and interviews with sympathetic news outlets or journalists where the questions are often pre-screened or aligned with the MEK’s democratic gesture. All interviewers follow the specific agenda of the group.

The absence of such engagements is often attributed to several factors. One primary reason cited by critics and observers is the MEK’s highly centralized and authoritarian structure, which discourages independent scrutiny and dissent. The MEK has faced numerous accusations of cult-like practices, human rights abuses against its own members within its camps, and a lack of internal democracy, which challenging interviews or debates could expose.

Furthermore, the MEK’s history of violent struggle and its designation as a terrorist organization by some countries (though later delisted by the US and EU) has led to a cautious approach to public relations, prioritizing controlled messaging over open dialogue.

The MEK’s strategy is focused on maintaining a consistent public image, concentrating on its opposition to Iranian government and its so-called vision for a democratic Iran, while avoiding situations that could lead to critical examination of its past or internal mechanisms such as cult-like practices under the despotic ruling of Maryam Rajavi and her disappeared husband Massoud Rajavi.

Some analysts argue that the MEK’s hierarchical and authoritarian structure, with the Rajavis at its apex, is incompatible with the transparency and accountability expected of a democratic leadership. The group’s documented history of internal purges, isolation of members, and strict ideological control are reasons why open debate format would be problematic for their narrative.

It is difficult to consider Maryam Rajavi a democratic leader of a democratic organization based on her consistent avoidance of open, challenging journalistic scrutiny and the documented internal practices of the MEK, despite her widely propagated ten-point plan for future of Iran.

Mazda Parsi

October 28, 2025 0 comments

"Tirana to Tehran" Conference, a journey between cultures and truths

Former members of the MEK

Tirana to Tehran Conference held in Tirana

In the premises of the “Fresku” hotel in Tirana, a conference on the topic “From Tirana to Tehran” was held yesterday, organized by the Nejat Society Albania. The event was received with great interest by numerous citizens, intellectuals, journalists and families whose relatives are trapped in the isolated camp of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in Manzë.

The hall was full of interested participants, who followed with attention every word of the speakers and their touching stories about the violence, isolation and deceptions in the destructive cult of Rajavi. The atmosphere was warm, emotional and full of solidarity with the families of the MEK victims.
Representatives of the Albanian community also participated in this conference, expressing their indignation at the way the group manipulates people and uses Albanian territory for political and terrorist purposes. Some of the speakers, former MEK members, shared their personal experiences, showing the true and violent face of the group and the abuses that occur within the camp in Manzë.

A special moment was the speech of Aldo Sullolari, president of Nejat Society Albania, who had just returned from a trip to Iran. He spoke about his meetings with many Iranian families who are waiting with hope for news from their relatives trapped by the MEK in Albania. “The voices of these mothers and fathers must be heard here, in Albania, where their isolated sons are. Our association will continue to be a bridge of communication between them,” Aldo emphasized with emotion.
The conference also read several messages from families suffering from the MEK’s violence and terror. Those messages touched everyone’s hearts, showing the pain that this cult has caused for many families.

At the end of the meeting, the participants had the opportunity to talk with members of the Nejat Society Albania and with former members released from the camp, expressing their full support for their humane and courageous initiative. Many of them emphasized that such activities help the Albanian public to better understand the dark reality inside the MEK camp.

The “Tirana to Tehran” conference showed once again that the truth cannot be hidden. The voice of families, the love of mothers and relatives for their children, and the desire for justice are stronger than any propaganda or deception of the violent MEK cult.

“Tirana to Tehran” Conference, a journey between cultures and truths

October 25, 2025 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Taha Hosseini former member of the MEK recounts his experience

“Entry to Ashraf is free, exit is forbidden. You will stay here until you die.”
Fahimeh Arvani, the 6th defendant in the trial of the leaders of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) told Taha Hosseini when he asked her to return his ID documents to him because he wanted to leave the group.

Taha Hosseini is a former member of the MEK. He is one of the thousands of people that the MEK lured into the organization through deception and fraud. He is one of those who fell into the trap of the MEK’s kidnappers in Turkey while he had traveled there to find a job.

The MEK recruiters told Taha that they have a large factory in Iraq which only recruited Iranians. A female MEK recruiter in Turkey told him, “The wages they give you here are very low. Turks have no mercy on Iranians. We recruit labor in Turkey.

We have a very large factory in Iraq. Only Iranians work in Iraq. We do not hire non-Iranians. We had people work in our factory in Iraq for a year, after a year they said they want to go to Europe, they went to Europe with a lot of money and now they live there and help their families financially.”

Taha was convinced to move to Iraq to work in the so-called factory. He gave his passport to them. Eventually, he was taken to Iraq where he was faced with the MEK’s military camp in Iraqi dessert. He was shocked to see people with military uniforms. There was nothing like a factory.

Two women with khaki military uniforms and red scarves welcomed him. One of them introduced herself and said, “I’m Fereshteh, the army’s reception officer, and my deputy is Marzieh.” Taha asked her, “What is the army doing in your factory!?”

Fereshteh Yeganeh, the high-ranking member of the MEK who is the 42nd defendant in the trial of the leaders of the group, replied, “Which factory? Here is Camp Ashraf, the place of war with the regime [Islamic Republic of Iran]!”

In response to Taha’s complaints he shouted, “Camp Ashraf is a battlefield, give whatever documents you have to Sister Marzieh, we will give them back to you later if you need them.” Thus, they confiscated his passport, ID card, and birth certificate.

Taha Hosseini was then given a military uniform to wear. Although he did not want to be a member of the MEK, he had no way out. In the reception unit he got to know some other guys who had been recruited in other countries under the fake job promise.

He was under military and cult-like pressure for four years with no access to the outside world. He was suppressed by the group leaders when ever he asked to contact his family.

In a meeting that Taha asked Fahimeh to let him leave the camp, she said, “Don’t even think about running away! If you run away from Camp Ashraf, Iraqi forces will arrest you and say you are a spy and execute you. Erase the thought of escape from your mind! You have entered into our organization, do whatever we tell you!”

Taha Hosseini could manage to escape the group only after the collapse of Saddam when the US army disarmed the MEK in 2003 and supervised Camp Ashraf for a while.

In 2004, Taha returned to his hometown, Arak in the central province of Iran. He got married and had children. He is now a welder and happy with his life.

“Rajavi and his gang have no humanitarian feelings.” Taha Hosseini says. “Rajavi has trained a bunch of crooks and fraudsters in his own school. They deceive people and ruin their lives. I hope no young person falls into Rajavi’s trap.”

October 20, 2025 0 comments

Members of the MEK

Why was the status of Ashraf 3 residents not renewed?

How the leaders of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) bypassed the UNHCR since their departure from Iraq
More than ten years have passed since the transfer of the first group of members of the MEK from Iraq to Albania. During this period, a large number of members of the organization have managed to free themselves from its physical and psychological bars and step into the free world. However, more than two thousand members of the organization still live inside a base called Ashraf 3, in northern Albania, near the small village of Manz. There could be various reasons for these people staying in an authoritarian organization with cult-like practices, the most important of which is their identity status.

Ray Torabi, a former member of the MEK, shared some facts about the identity status of residents of the MEK headquarters in Albania on his X social media account. He is a former child soldier of the MEK, and left the organization in 2017 after spending 18 years of his adolescence and youth in the group.

Torabi, who has so far made significant revelations about the violent and cult-like nature of the MEK, writes about the obstruction created by MEK leaders regarding the legal status of its members upon their arrival in Albania.

“The MEK bought many Albanian politicians with a lot of money,” Torabi says. “Also, the initial agreement, according to which all MEK members were transferred to Albania, made it very easy for the authorities to control, imprison, and pressure members.”

He went on to explain the initial agreement between the MEK and the US and Albanian governments to transfer members to Albania:

“That agreement made it very easy for the MEK to control its members because it gave the cult full responsibility for its members. Another important point is the legal status of MEK members in Albania. Members do not have a permanent legal status. A few years ago, the government issued an ID card with a temporary status to each member, but its expiration date has passed and MEK officials did not allow it to be renewed. Therefore, the members’ departure from the camp is not permitted because they do not have valid documents.”

complementing Ray Torabi’s explanations, we can mention the statements of Hamid Atabay, another former member of the MEK. Atabay, who spent 29 years of his life trapped in the MEK’s prisons, spoke about his experiences during his membership inside the group, in a recent interview. In part of his testimonies, he discussed the conditions of the MEK members when they left Iraq and were transferred to Albania.

The former member of the MEK, who was captured by the MEK as a prisoner of war during the Iran-Iraq War in his youth, recalls that in 2013, during the transfer to Albania, MEK officials presented a document to the ranks and, in an emergency, under pressure and trick, coerced them to sign it.

According to this document, each member of the MEK declares that he is fully satisfied with his membership in the group and is determined to remain in it and that he has no request for cooperation in obtaining asylum from international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

This document was actually submitted by the MEK to HCR. Thus, many MEK members who decided to leave the group after it was relocated in European soil faced a major obstacle resulting from signing that document, according to which the commissioner would not provide them with any assistance in obtaining legal status.

Based on Hamid Atabay’s testimonies, whenever a member of the organization sought legal asylum in Albania, his signature on the aforementioned document was shown to him as a legal obstacle.

Therefore, the individuals who have so far managed to escape the mental and physical bars of the MEK –there are many of them – have been able to overcome countless mental, physical and legal obstacles. Escaping a military and authoritarian cult that has used all its might to preserve its forces is an extremely great and admirable achievement.

Mazda Parsi

October 15, 2025 0 comments

Iran

Report on the 40th court session of the MEK’s trial

The 40th court session examining the charges against 104 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as well as the organization’s nature as a legal entity, was held on October 7th, in branch 11 of the Criminal Court of Tehran Province, presided over by Judge Amir Reza Dehghani.

In this court, the plaintiffs’ lawyer said: The scale of the crimes committed by members of the organization cannot be described in a few documents, whether it is the young people who fell into the trap of the MEK or the parents who lost their children as a result of the MEK’s terror acts.

Maddah continued, “One of the crimes they committed was Operation Chelcheragh, a military operation carried out by members of the MEK on June 18, 1988.”

He said, “The goal of this operation was to capture the border city of Mehran, 100 kilometers from Ilam. After capturing the city of Mehran, members of the group looted the city, killed more than 8,000 Iranians, and took 1,500 people as hostage.
The lawyer said that the MEK calls its force as National Liberation Army. “Which liberation army in the world would storm a hospital and assassinate people from two-year-old children to young people, men and women?” he added. “A liberation army is supported by the people based on international law, while the MEK assassinated ordinary people.”

According to Maddah, intimidating, killing civilians, having illegitimate goals, lack of public support, and violence and resorting to force are among the most important definitions of terrorism in international law.

He said, “Liberation organizations in international law have special characteristics that distinguish them from terrorist groups. These organizations usually move towards their goals by observing the rules of war and international law and use legitimate means to achieve their goals, not by war crimes such as shooting and executing innocent people.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer added, “The liberation armies are internationally recognized and supported by international institutions. In contrast, the MEK was recognized as a terrorist group in many countries, including the United States and Europe.”

Maddah notified that the MEK’s army stole a large amount of military equipment and tools that were to be used against the Iraqi Baath regime, in Operation Chelcheragh. The group even mentioned this issue in its newspaper, Mujahed.

“Since this action was a widespread act against national security and territorial integrity, the crime can be an example of corruption on earth,” he suggested. “Also, since they used weapons against people and created fear and insecurity, this crime can also be an example of war.”

The lawyer, on behalf of his clients asked the judge to take action to attribute the crimes of corruption on earth and war to all the leaders of the MEK who are among the defendants in the case and to issue sentences for them commensurate with these crimes.

A number of former members of the MEK including Ali Ekrami and Iraj Salehi also attended the 40th court in order to testify about what they witnessed in Chelcheragh.

Families of victims of Operation Chelcheragh took the stand and asked the court to bring MEK leaders to justice. The son of Asad Soltani, the sister of Salem Alipour and the brother of Mohammadi demanded revenge for the blood of their beloved ones who were killed on June 18, 1988 in the Mehran-Dehloran region.

At the end of the hearing, the judge announced that the next hearing would be held on October 21.

October 11, 2025 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

October 8 1997, MEK’s designation as an FTO

Twenty-eight years from today, the US Department of State designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
On October 8, 1997, the US Department of State designated the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), also known by the aliases Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

At the time, the US government stated that the designation was part of a broader US government effort to combat terrorism by restricting support for violent activities and pressuring violent groups to cease their involvement in terrorism.

In response, the MEK claims that the Bill Clinton administration’s designation of the group as a an FTO was influenced by a desire to improve relations with Tehran during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami. However, American reports have emphasized that the group has a history of violent acts, including the murder of American citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attempt to attack Iran’s mission to the United Nations in 1992.

Despite the MEK’s terrorist record of killing Iranian citizens and officials in the 1960s, the April 1992 attacks on 13 Iranian embassies and missions, including the Iranian mission in New York, were perhaps the closest in time and space to violate American laws on their territory. In these simultaneous attacks on Iranian government embassies and missions in ten different countries, MEK operatives used a variety of weapons, took hostages, and beat ambassadors and embassy staff, leading to the arrest of a number of MEK members.

The MEK was later delisted in September 2012. The official reason given for the delisting was a change in circumstances, including the group’s renunciation of violence and its cooperation in transferring its members from Iraq to Albania.

However, the extensive, multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts of the MEK and its supporters have been specifically documented in documents and reports as leverage to delist the MEK. The U.S. government stated at the time that the official justification for delisting the MEK focused on the group’s “behavior change” and “strategic considerations,” but concerns about the group’s cult-like nature and human rights abuses against its internal members, both before and after delisting, have been widely documented by various organizations and government reports.

The RAND Corporation, which published a document on the MEK specifically for the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Library of Congress have highlighted concerns about the MEK’s authoritarian leadership, the isolation of its members, and their psychological manipulation in separate reports.

The “strategic considerations” of the United States and its other Western partners may imbrace the famous proverb: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But the historical record of the crimes of the MEK over the years since the 1960s is undeniable.

To verify the “change in behavior” of the MEK, the message attributed to the MEK’s leader Massoud Rajavi that was published by the group’s website, on December 24, 2024, is clear enough. Expressing his joy after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, he made the following request to the United States: “We do not ask for help from America. It is enough for it to return the weapons of the Liberation Army that it took from us.”

It is obvious that, Rajavi, following Golani’s path, is determined to continue using violence to achieve power in Iran. Historically, he has not refrained from any violent act against his fellow countrymen every time he has had access to arms and the borders of Iran. Whether or not the name of the MEK is on the list of terrorist groups, based on alleged strategic considerations and behavior change, the substantive truth of the MEK cannot be concealed.

By Mazda Parsi

October 8, 2025 0 comments

Maryam Rajavi

Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan Violates Iran’s Territorial Integrity

Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan has faced a lot of criticism, along with the lack of acceptance of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) among the opposition to the Iranian government. This criticism has mainly focused on the impossibility of this plan, the lack of credibility of the MEK as a democratic institution, and the historical context of the organization.

Most critics believe that despite the modern and pro-democracy appearance of the aforementioned plan, the implementation of this plan by the MEK is in contradiction with the MEK’s history and its authoritarian internal structure. However, in this article, we will discuss one of the provisions of the plan that is subject to criticism in itself: the seventh article of Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan for the future of Iran.

The seventh article of the so-called plan indicates a disregard for Iranian national and territorial integrity due to its stance on minorities’ autonomy. This is a complex issue with different interpretations.

Minorities’ autonomy or separatism

While the plan advocates for the self-governance of ethnic minorities including Kurds, within a so-called democratic framework, its implications for national integrity are debated among analysts and researchers.
“self-governance” within the context that Maryam Rajavi claims, refers to administrative and cultural autonomy. She claims that “Iran’s national unity and territorial integrity” would be the framework of such autonomy.

However, critics view any form of significant autonomy for ethnic minorities as a potential precursor to separatism, regardless of the claimed intentions, especially given the historical context of ethnic tensions in Iran.

History of cooperation between the MEK and the separatists

The MEK’s background indicates that its political wing, National Council of Resistance has a historical alliance with Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) which is an armed leftist separatist movement of Kurds in Iran. This have been considered as opportunistic and driven by shared opposition to the Iranian government. The KDP itself has historically sought greater autonomy for Kurds within Iran.

Besides, the MEK sympathizes with Jaysh al-Adl, a Sunni Islamist and separatist militia in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Although there is no credible evidence of cooperation between the two groups, the MEK media not only has not condemned the terrorist attacks of the group, but has always reported them with bias in favor of Jaysh al-Adl.

Documents were also recently published showing that the National Council of Resistance Office in the United States (NCRIUS) has provided financial aid to the Tahririyah Talab group of the Struggle for the Liberation of Ahwaz. According to this document, Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy representative of the National Council of Resistance in the United States, has provided $350,000 in financial assistance to Saeed Hamidan, the leader of the Struggle for the Liberation of Ahwaz, in order to “support” him and his so-called “liberation” movement.

In its efforts to destabilize the Iranian government, leaders of the MEK not only ignore national and territorial integrity but also, they try to synergize with separatist groups in order to seek power in Iran.

The nature of such alliance can be strategic, focusing on immediate shared goals against a common enemy but it has not succeeded in over four decades. It just definitely marks the very characteristic of the MEK as an opportunistic hypocrite group.

Mazda Parsi

October 5, 2025 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts