As it is common in most closed systems with an authoritarian structure, no feedback is permitted within the system and any modification is refused except those done by leadership approval. As a result, any critic or complainer will face a variety of allegations since the leader never tolerates them. It is a well proven fact within Mojahedin Khalq Organizatin (MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCRI) and Massoud Rajavi goes further in his message of January 20th in an attempt to justify his hostile and aggressive reactions against his critics:

They suppose we do not know the meaning, definition and the difference between serious criticism and submission, reactionarism, scandal, and flattery regarding the regime of Velayat-e Faqih and democratic gestures and think that we have not experienced it.

In this way, Rajavi makes an attempt to deny all criticisms and disclosures made by MKO detached members pretending that all his critics are unexceptionally related to the Iranian regime and are it agents. Evidently, he has to attribute his critics as well as the opponent trends to the Iranian regime. His self-fabricating theory and principle of “those who are not with us are against us” legitimizes him to introduce anyone having the least objection to his policies and actions as an agent of the Iranian regime. His analyses in the last three decades results in this conclusion:

They suppose we do not know the notorious ministry (of Information) has instructed anonymous soldiers to give the priority to spreading rumors on the action of Mojahedin in labeling all their critics as the agents of Iranian regime.

The above statements being distracted from his message of January 20th may shed light on Rajavi’s paradoxical and false assertions. He tries to infuse the idea that in spite of the existing rumors against him, he is highly democratic and ready for accountability contrary to the Iranian regime. Interestingly enough, Rajavi denies all the charges posed on him and attributes his 30-year policy to the Iranian regime while all his intra and extra-organizational statements and messages in recent years openly focus on calling his critics and opponents as infiltrators and agents of the regime. He states that he knows the difference between serious criticism and submission. It is a clear difference and everybody can distinguish the boundary between these concepts yet Rajavi has never admitted any criticism, even those announced to have been on an impartial side.

It is highly surprising that someone can claim all his critics, detached members of his organization as well as westerners and researchers criticizing him over the last three decades have been paid by the Iranian regime. This assertion in itself implies Rajavi’s undemocratic and egocentric nature. Now this question arises that even if we consider all his past critics related to the Iranian regime, how can he legitimize his present critics and be accountable for their political, ideological, and strategic questions and doubts in an ethical manner far from any insult and slander keeping the red borders? Is it probable that Rajavi once for ever answer his critics’ questions and doubts even by means of virtual and communicative devices?

Even we give him the opportunity to disgrace those he assumes to be the agents of the Iranian regime and just answer to one person.

His claim of the policy of the Iranian regime in spreading rumors on his labeling the critics as agents of the regime is a big lie yet taking an optimistic view; he is invited to take part in face-to-face debates with his critics to prove that the Iranian regime is responsible for these charges and also acquit himself of all accusations posed on him in recent three decades. Although the new approach of Rajavi to solve the information gap in those who are unfamiliar with his past history due to their social isolation with distortion and fabrication is not so instrumental, we can blink at them and hope that the recent transitions and new conditions have influenced Rajavi and he is ready for a fundamental change. Taking this assumption into mind, Rajavi is invited to determine a time for answering the issues and questions posed on him.

No need to say that a terrorist cult’s bastion is a matter of death and survival and that is the reason why MKO periodically upholds to groundless claims to safeguard its stronghold in Iraq. Rajavi and his propaganda machine are engaged in a never-ceasing, fervent struggle of supporting Camp Ashraf. Massoud Rajavi in his long message of January 20th once more focuses on the strategic significance of Camp Ashraf and NLA (National Liberation Army) pretending that the survival of Mojaheidn depends on keeping their ideological bastion. There is no need to say that this is merely another propaganda blitz for killing time and distracting the attention of the world from the real cultic and terrorist nature of MKO. However, he goes further making a novel claim that can be considered the latest of his serial false promises. As he puts into words:

Maryam and Ashraf proved that in the most tortuous and uneasy periods they will resist up to the last breath… Yes, now after 45 years of Mojahedin life passing in battlefields, it can be asserted that this is the supreme result of the Iranian struggle since constitutionalism in the past 103 years. It may guarantee the imminent victory of Iranians.

This illusion of grandeur and megalomania to the point of calling a cultic bastion like Camp Ashraf as the best result of Iranian struggles in last century has its roots in the Mojahedin common policy of lip service and subservience as an outdated one kept in Rajavi’s isolated museum of Camp Ashraf that is about to turn into a desolate spot after dislocation of Mojahedin. The fact is that Rajavi tries to exaggerate on the fabricated significance of Camp Ashraf from time to time under different excuses including embroidering on the position takings of some Westerners on the significance of Camp Ashraf as a result of Rajavi’s disbursing lots of money for publishing such news to infuse Ashraf residents with the idea that Western media have nothing to do but defending Camp Ashraf and the point that their resistance may result in a global support. Yet it is unclear why these European societies and media cannot persuade Iraqi Government in keeping Camp Ashraf and Rajavi has to resort to cultic procedures. The fact is that his supporters and advocators in defending Camp Ashraf are a number of retied politicians as well as some covering institutes under his command.

It seems that Rajavi has been persuaded that his tricks are of no use and new methods are required to divert the attention of Ashraf residents from realities. The new assertion of Rajavi in his message of January 20th can be evaluated in this regard. Taking a brief look at the past history of the organization and NLA may clarify the situation. Rajavi is like the man claiming to stand in the middle of the earth needing no reason for proving his assertion since nobody troubles himself to test this claim measuring all over the earth to find its middle point. Likewise, Rajavi can claim that his army is the fruit of 103 years struggle in Iran with no logical reason. Even if his whopper is accepted for his consolation, he has to bear in mind that the imminent annihilation of NLA and Camp Ashraf is equal to the total destruction of 103-year achievement of Iranians. Who can believe in such a groundless and false claim except a number of brainwashed victims of a cult of personality?

Rajavi’s grandiose claims have many irrecoverable consequences paid mainly by NLA and Ashraf residents as his false promise of short-time overthrow failed and was replaced by a promise of 6-month, 1-year and long-term overthrow that resulted in an organizational split in MKO. Rajavi has to bear into mind that time is not a phenomenon to be stopped or controlled. As three decades passed and his false promises were disclosed, his present claims will be tested in near future and may end in more disgrace for him. He can make many other false claims too, yet finally the truth will overcome illusion and fantasy and the global community will identify the real terrorist nature of Mojahedin and its leadership.

It seems that Rajavi is drowning in illusion trying to overlook what the reality is. As Don Quixote failed to recognize the reality surrounding him, Rajavi seems to live in an everlasting dream. He is far from understanding that a revolution cannot be achieved overnight through an outdated strategy and false promises. The time will prove the insubstantiality of Rajavi’s claims and then he has to answer what has been the basis of his so-called 103-year result of Iranian history that came to an end by a light breeze.