As an ardent opponent of the nuclear deal between Iran and the West, the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (the MKO) is allegedly proposing a third option: democratic change in iran. The propaganda arm of the MKO, National Council of resistance, suggests that democratic change in Iran should be fulfilled by empowering the Iranian people to change the regime.
However, the reality behind the alleged third option is absolutely different. The MKO opposes any deal with Islamic Republic since it considers it as appeasement. The group apparently is not in favor of military action against Iran because they want to show their so called sympathy for Iranian people rather they only care for their own interest and survival.
Here we are going to discuss why the MKO is not being honest when they claim they are against the invasion of Iran. During the 8 year war between Iran and Iraq MKO was the private army of Saddam Hussein. The group was funded and trained by the former Ba’th regime. Besides, the group’s current attitude towards.The West and Iraq do not show any evidence that they are honest on what they claim.
The MKO has been lobbying in the US Congress for over a decade. Its multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to advocate its cause has become much harder after a deal between Iran and the West was reached. The complicated lobbying activities of the group is ultimately in line with with a minority of Zionist warmongers of US legislators and former military generals who are supported by the powerful Zionist lobby AIPAC.
Daniel Larison of the American Conservative describes how AIPAC and the MKO beat on war drums: “AIPAC has been lobbying against the nuclear deal as one would expect, and this week they are touting the opposition of a handful of former military officers to the agreement. The first one that they cite is Hugh Shelton, who recently penned an op-ed objecting to the deal while praising the virtues of the “former” terrorist group Mujahideen-e Khalq’s political umbrella organization, the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran. It is telling that they edited the quote to leave out his reference to the latter, since they probably know it would discredit what Shelton says. “
Larison clarifies that supporters of the MKO are on a very wrong path. “Anyone that sides with this group is pushing a regime change agenda that is extremely unpopular among Iranians, and so shouldn’t be taken seriously on anything related to Iran,” he writes.
Larison’s assertion about the MKO’s unpopularity inside Iran verifies the invalidity of the group’s so-called third option. The alleged democratic change by supporting the MKO as the “main opposition” is only promising by the help of the same Iranians. Definitely, the Iranian nation never forgets the MKO traitors who sided with Saddam Hussein.
Larison criticizes the army general Hugh Shelton for his “plainly false” claim that the MKO is the “main opposition” against the Islamic republic. “The group is widely hated inside Iran and has almost no support in the Iranian diaspora,” he puts. “It is wildly unrepresentative of what most Iranians in Iran and elsewhere want for their country, and it is also at odds with what most Iranians think about the nuclear deal. “
Thus, on one hand, the so-called third option of Maryam Rajavi is not binding and on the other hand her lifelong strategy does not agree any deal with the Iranian government. The left option for the MKO is nothing but war. While, the majority of Iranian are advocating for peace all around the world, the MKO is beating on war drums harder.
By Mazda Parsi
**Larison, Daniel, The MEK and the Deal with Iran MKO, The American Conservative, August 13, 2015