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