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.
Tom O’Connor, Senior Writer of the Newsweek suggests that “as Israel eyes regime change, Iran’s opposition is divisive and divided. He asserts that a number of observers argue that neither Pahlavi nor the MEK hold the necessary influence in Iran to substantially affect the country’s future.
In case of the MEK, he quotes Ali Alfoneh, senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. Alfoneh told Newsweek, “The NCRI/MEK, which relocated to Iraq and collaborated with the Iraqi Army throughout the war against Iran, has been reduced to a cult-like political sect lacking any significant domestic constituency.”
O’Conner also has interviewed Muhammad Sahimi, professor at the University of Southern California, who has outlined a difficult situation for both MEK and monarchy supporters.
“The MEK has had long-standing relations with Israel, and they too hope that they can come to power, although they are universally despised by Iranians from all walks of life, due to their siding with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq during its war with Iran,” Sahimi told Newsweek about the MEK. “At the same time, their members are all in their 60s and 70s, and in exile. They are a spent force.”
The author also talked to Sina Toosi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. Toosi argued that propping up either Pahlavi or the MEK could ultimately harm efforts for democracy in Iran.
“While these groups will likely seek to use the current crisis to boost their visibility and present themselves as viable alternatives, empowering them would be a grave miscalculation,” Toosi told Newsweek. “It would further discredit any externally backed initiative for political change and would undermine the broader Iranian pro-democracy movement, which overwhelmingly rejects foreign interference and sectarian or authoritarian alternatives.”
“Paradoxically, some of the strongest opposition to U.S. or Israeli interference often comes from grassroots civil society actors and reformist or moderate political currents, not the security establishment,” he added. “Undermining those internal voices—who support democratic change but oppose war and foreign manipulation—could inadvertently strengthen the very forces Israel and the U.S. claim to be opposing.”
