MEK members' at camp ashraf
The cult of Rajavi

Why is the MEK considered a destructive cult?

The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) or the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) (which is widely considered an alias for the MEK), is considered a destructive cult due to a combination of factors, including its charismatic and absolute leadership, enforced isolation and control over members’ lives, history of violence and shifting ideologies, and allegations of human rights abuses within the group [1] [2] [3].

The group was founded in the 1960s with a blend of Islamic and Marxist ideologies, initially opposing the Shah of Iran [1] [4]. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the MEK clashed with Ayatollah Khomeini’s new regime, leading to a period of assassinations and bombings against Iranian officials [1] [2]. In the 1980s, the MEK relocated to Iraq and allied with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, fighting against Iran [1] [4]. This alliance is a significant reason for its widespread unpopularity within Iran, as many Iranians view their collaboration with an enemy during wartime as unforgivable [1] [4].

Several former high-ranking members and human rights organizations have described the MEK as a cult. Masoud Banisadr, a former MEK representative to the UN and US, who left the group in 1996, now dedicates his work to understanding cults and terrorism, explicitly labeling the MEK a “destructive cult” [2] [3]. He highlights the presence of a charismatic leader (Masoud Rajavi, and later Maryam Rajavi), a black-and-white worldview, enforced isolation from family, and mind manipulation as key characteristics [2]. Banisadr recounts how members were encouraged to hate their family members if they were perceived as enemies and how he himself had to go into hiding after leaving the group [2].

Human Rights Watch and a 2007 US State Department report have documented allegations of severe mistreatment of MEK members, including forced divorces, lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture for those attempting to leave the group [1] [4]. Banisadr himself was forced to divorce his wife, a common practice within the MEK where celibacy was enforced for all members except the Rajavi leadership [2] [3]. This control over personal relationships and the suppression of individuality are hallmarks of cultic behavior [2].

The MEK’s internal structure is far from democratic, despite its public portrayal as a democratic alternative to the Iranian government [1]. Critics argue that the group uses human rights concerns to obscure its past and present practices [1]. The group’s influence in Western political circles is often attributed to its significant financial contributions to speakers at its events, with estimates ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 per speech [1]. Despite its efforts to rebrand itself as a democratic force, analysts and former members assert that the MEK has little to no visible support inside Iran [1] [4].

Sources:
[1] Kamali Dehghan, Saeed, Who is the Iranian group targeted by bombers and beloved of Trump allies?, The Guardian, July 2, 2018.
[2] Adam Forrest, A Former MEK Member Talks About the Extremist Iranian ‘Cult’, VICE, September 2, 2014.
[3] Potter, Richard, The Cult in the Shadow War: An Interview with a former member of Mojahedin-e-Khalq, Mondoweiss, November 26, 2013.
[4] Lo, Joe, UK MPs attended rally for Iranian group whose leader is still banned by London, Middle East Eye, January 30, 2018.

Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Massoud Rajavi
Massoud Rajavi

Rajavi’s complex mix of miscalculation for Eternal Light

Massoud Rajavi’s decision to launch the “Forough Javidan” (Eternal Light) operation in 1988, which resulted in significant casualties for his forces, was driven by a complex mix of strategic miscalculation, political ambition, and a profound misunderstanding of the prevailing conditions. The operation, also known as Mersad by Iran, was a large-scale military offensive by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from Iraq into Iran, aiming to capture Tehran and overthrow the Iranian government in three days.

Rajavi’s miscalculations

One primary reason for Rajavi’s decision was his belief that the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse and that the Iranian public would rise up to support the MEK’s advance. This assessment was a critical misjudgment.
The Iran-Iraq War had severely weakened Iran, and the country had just accepted UN Resolution 598, signaling a willingness to end the conflict. Rajavi interpreted this as a sign of the Iranian government’s weakness and desperation, believing that a final push would lead to its downfall. He underestimated the Iranian people’s hatred against the MEK and their loyalty to the Islamic Republic, despite the war’s hardships. The MEK had been largely isolated from the realities inside Iran, operating from Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s patronage, which may have contributed to this skewed perception. Also, the Iranian nation despised the MEK because it had allied with the invader, Saddam Hussein.

Rajavi’s deep-rooted animosity against Iran

The MEK had been engaged in a pitiless war with the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1981, including from Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Rajavi, having sided with Saddam Hussein against his Iranian country-fellow, was seen as a traitor by many Iranians. This intense ideological conflict and desire for revenge likely fueled his determination to launch a decisive attack.
Another significant factor was the MEK’s reliance on Saddam Hussein’s support and their integration into the Iraqi military strategy. Saddam armed the MEK with Iranian weapons captured from Iranian troops and provided them with a base in Iraq. Massoud Rajavi, had close cooperation with Saddam Hussein, who entrusted them with the assassination of figures like Lieutenant General Sayyad Shirazi, who had inflicted heavy losses on Saddam’s army during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam’s strategic objectives, which included creating a buffer zone and destabilizing Iran, aligned with the Rajavi’s ambitions, leading to a joint offensive. The MEK, with Iraqi air power cover, aimed to advance rapidly towards Kermanshah and ultimately Tehran.

Rajavi’s cult-like dictatorship

The MEK’s internal structure and leadership style also played a role. The organization was characterized by a “guru-like-leadership” where Rajavi held “divine power” and brainwashed members, controlling even their personal matters. This cult-like environment fostered unquestioning loyalty and may have suppressed dissenting opinions regarding the feasibility of the operation. Members were reportedly enslaved to the leadership’s decisions, making them willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

Bad timing for Rajavi

Finally, the timing of the operation, shortly after Iran accepted UN Resolution 598, was critical. Rajavi likely saw this as a window of opportunity, believing that Iran’s military was disorganized. However, Iran’s acceptance of the ceasefire allowed it to re-focus its military efforts on the MEK, leading to a swift and decisive counter-attack known as Operation Mersad. The Iranian military, including the Revolutionary Guard and the Army, unified their efforts and launched a coordinated response, utilizing paratroopers and air power to demolish the MEK forces. The MEK’s expectation of a popular uprising in Iran never materialized, and they were met with strong resistance from the Iranian military and civilians.

In summary, Massoud Rajavi’s decision to launch the Forough Javidan operation was a catastrophic miscalculation rooted in an overestimation of the MEK’s support within Iran, an underestimation of the Iranian government’s resilience, deep-rooted animosity towards Iran, and a strategic alignment with Saddam Hussein that ultimately backfired. He lost over one thousand of his forces including men, women and even child soldiers like Maryam Gheitani and Zohair Zakeri.

Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi
Maryam Rajavi

Why is Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” dismissed?

The “Third Option” as articulated by Maryam Rajavi, the leader of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is a strategic approach to regime change in Iran that rejects both foreign military intervention and appeasement of the current clerical regime. While the so-called third option should seem reasonable and democratic for the opponents of the Iranian government, it has not been embraced by them.

It depends on who’s proposing third option

The MEK’s background and nature are not compatible with the principals of third option. The apparent principals of third option are the followings:

1. No Foreign War: The strategy avoids any form of foreign military involvement in Iran
2. No Appeasement: It rejects negotiations and any diplomatic approach toward the Iranian government.
3. Regime Change by the Iranian People and Resistance: The core tenet is that regime change should be achieved through the efforts of the Iranian people and their organized resistance

The first principal is unheard of in the MEK’s background. The MEK was the only group that chose armed struggle is its fight against the Iranian newly established government in 1980s. It sided with Iraqi dictator in the first foreign war against Iran. It acted like the private army of Saddam Hussein in intelligence and military operations against Iranians.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the MEK was disarmed by the US military. Since then, it has been cooperating with the US and Israeli intelligence services and military in order to destabilize the government in Tehran.

Maryam Rajavi rejects diplomatic solutions because negotiation and diplomacy has never been a part of MEK’s strategy. The group has always been violently suppressing its opponents, critics and even its own dissident members. The only diplomatic effort made by the MEK has been through its hefty multi-million-dollar lobbying campaign in western parliaments.

The most controversial principle of third option is the last one: Regime change by the Iranian people and resistance. Maryam Rajavi has consistently emphasized that the Iranian people possess the essential elements for change.

The “organized resistance” that Rajavi refers to is allegedly the MEK’s network of supporters, activists, and members, both inside and outside Iran, who are committed to overthrowing the current regime. Where are these people?

It was just a few weeks ago that the New York Times reported that the MEK has almost zero support inside Iran.

The MEK dreams of mobilizing such a network to create a broad-based movement capable of challenging the Iranian government’s authority. However, the reality of the Iranian political scene indicated the opposite. Iranians of any political hate the MEK. Even if they want regime change, they do not trust Maryam Rajavi.

Democratic values and Third Option

According to Maryam Rajavi’s claims, the Third Option is presented as a democratic alternative to war and appeasement, with the goal of establishing a free, secular, and non-nuclear Iran. Its framework often highlights the MEK’s commitment to democratic values, human rights, and a secular government in Iran. This is intended to appeal to a broad range of Iranians and garner international support for the movement.

The success of third option highly depends on the ability of the MEK to effectively mobilize and organize the Iranian population. The strategy has been the subject of considerable debate and scrutiny, with critics questioning the MEK’s past actions and its ability to represent the diverse interests of the Iranian people.

The contradiction between Maryam Rajavi’s advocacy for democratic values for Iranians and the fact that MEK has a history of violence, cult-like practices, and internal authoritarianism, is the crucial topic raised by the experts. This contradiction is a complex issue with significant implications for the MEK’s credibility and its claims to represent the Iranian people.

The MEK’s internal structure and leadership have always been subject to scrutiny. Critics have described the group as a cult, citing its strict hierarchical structure, personality cult around Massoud Rajavi (Maryam Rajavi’s husband), and thought control and isolation of members. Defectors have reported instances of forced confessions, restrictions on contact with the outside world, forced celibacy and the suppression of dissent. These practices are seen as antithetical to democratic values, which emphasize individual freedom, critical thinking, and open dialogue.

Maryam Rajavi’s leadership role in the MEK raises questions about her commitment to democratic principles. The MEK’s internal structure and past actions contradict the values she publicly espouses, and so it undermines her credibility as a champion of democracy for Iran. The MEK’s history of violence and its cult-like practices have created a significant challenge for Maryam Rajavi to reconcile her advocacy for democratic values with the reality of the organization she leads.

The core of the contradiction lies in the disparity between the MEK’s stated goals of establishing a democratic Iran and the means it has employed to achieve those goals, as well as its internal organizational structure. The use of violence, the suppression of dissent, and the cult-like practices within the MEK are seen as incompatible with the democratic values that Maryam Rajavi claims to uphold. This contradiction raises questions about the MEK’s true intentions and its ability to govern democratically if it were to come to power in Iran.

Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The new documentary Children of Camp Ashraf was screened at the Gotenborg Film Festival in Sweden
The cult of Rajavi

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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK women
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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi
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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK lobbying
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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK women in Ashraf 3
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.”

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Nejat Newsletter no.126
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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Maryam Rajavi and Giuliani
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

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts