The achievements of Iranian’s at least past century’s movements, regardless of the pivotal role of the nationalist and religious leaders, have permanently influenced Iran’s contemporary history. These popular movements, particularly the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-9, the Jangal Rebellion of Gilan in 1917-21, the Oil Nationalization struggle of 1951-3, have been repeatedly exploited by Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the group took maximum advantage of these national movements.
In spite of their past three decades ideological deviations, Mojahedin claim to be moving on the same path of the century long Iranian movements campaigning for the cause of democracy and freedom. The claim is made at a time when most of the Iranian opposition look at Mojahedin as an anti-nationalist, anti-democratic, dependant, and authoritarian group; separation of many individuals and political activist from the resistance ceases any further explanation. A comparison between Mosaddeq’s thought and political stances and that of Mojahedin reveals to what extent the group is sincere in its claims.
The Oil Nationalization struggle has been known to be one of the epoch-making events in Iran in 1950s, a struggle that undercut the British absolute control over the Iranian oil industry and nationalized the reservoir. It also began a new phase of struggle against the imperialism with the US replacing the British Empire after the evolution of the US-Iran relations.
The revolution in 1978 opened a new chapter in Iran’s struggle against imperialism. Soon after the revolution, all the incongruous parties that failed to reconcile with the nature and matrix of revolution had to dissociate. MKO, atop of these opposition forces, wore the enthusiastic mask of Mosaddeqists in objection to a clerical leadership to challenge it. Were Mojahedin true Mosaddeqists as they claimed?
Regardless of MKO’s ideological-political analysis of Mosaddeq’s class location, sometimes barrowing Marxist terms to label him as representing petite bourgeoisie, Mojahedin resorted to a tactic of attaching themselves to Mosaddeq in an attempt to gain legitimacy.
The Oil Nationalization was the want of people, clerical leaders, and the nationalists to free Iran of foreign domination on reservoir. Moreover, it was a turning point to distinguish between the betrayers and patriots. Intending to free Iran from foreign exploitation, Mosaddeq, in spite of facing internal and external threats to overthrow him of his legal position as a prime minister, never backed off from his anti-imperialism stances and dissented to foreign and internal leftist supports to survive the infamous coup of August 1953.
Who doubts MKO’s alliance with Saddam to betray its own nation? A steadfast political leader steering Iran through the most tortuous days as, Mosaddeq never betrayed his nation and did not sell the independence and the national treasury at the offer of an imperialist supported power reign. Dr. Abul-Hassan Bani-Sadr, Iran’s first president after revolution, in an explanation of his dissociation from the National Council of Resistance stated:
Violation of independence principle by going to Iraq to serve the most felonious and corrupt regime has discredited the group among Iranians as anti-Iranist, anti-human, and anti-national and condemned it to isolation. 
In fact, Mojahedin’s alliance with Iraq at the time when parts of Iranian soil was usurped by Iraqi regime never corresponded with the resistance’s adopted principles that recognized Iran’s independence and territorial integrity. Bahman Nirumand, a dissociated member of the resistance, elaborated on the issue saying:
We lost patience with the resistance coming to notice that Mojahedin were negotiating with Saddam Hussein’s bloodthirsty regime for months to move the resistance headquarters to Iraq. We could not accept to see one of the indisputable principles of our ally, namely, belief in independence and negation of any dependence, was being violated. It was no more a tactic. The ignobility, I believed, would blot Mojahedin for ever. They were settled in a country that had made war with Iran for eight years. It had nothing to do with armed struggle; they are the aliens’ mercenaries. 
A true nationalist, Mosaddeq relied on support of people to accomplish the politically legal wants. Unlike him, Mojahedin, deprived of a social status, easily assented to the political and military backings of the aggressing enemy. Karim Haghi, a Mojahedin defector, articulated on the issue:
The National Council of Resistance lost its legitimacy when it broke away from the masses of people and sought the support of the foreign elements to assume power and turned into a club in hands of foreign countries privileging them in their dealings with Iran. 
Once, Mojahedin rebuked the communist Tudeh Party of relying on the Soviet Union to meet its party interests. Walking on the same road, Mojahedin put their past anti-American stances into the oblivion to form a new phase of siding with the US and Western countries. They have completely forgotten that Dr. Mosaddeq’s legal government was overthrown by a US-British plotted coup in 1953, the same plotters from whom Mojahedin beg for support. Apologizing the US for its past anti-American stances, the NCRI in a response to the U.S. State Department report on Mojahedin quoted Orlando Sentinel criticizing the US as a justification of reconsidering its hostile stance:
Alliances depend on a common enemy, not on shared values. This also speaks to another of the State Department’s specious criticisms of the Mujahideen, that they were anti-American in the 1970s. Yep, they sure were. They were trying to overthrow the shah, whom the United States had forced on the Iranian people in a CIA-engineered coup and whose dictatorship the U.S. government was supporting. It was impossible at that time to be anti-shah and pro-American. But that was then and this is now. Who are our strongest allies today? Our worst enemies 50 years ago, Japan and Germany. 
Believing to be descendents of Mosaddeq’s once powerful party, the National Front, Mojahedin proclaim the position of the new generation that Mosaddeq had advocated:
After Mossadeq’s fall from power, the [National] Front was taken over by politicians totally out of step with the society’s needs who advocated a passive "wait and see" attitude. They had no specific political agenda and no real platform. Their only political capital was Mossadeq’s popular appeal. Banished to his native village of Ahmadabad by the shah, Mossadeq distanced himself from them, telling visitors that Iran had to rely on the "energetic, dynamic younger generation" to topple the shah and bring about democracy. 
Earlier, in a memorial speech made at the burial chamber of the late Dr. Mosaddeq in 1980, Massoud Rajavi had vowed not to retreat from what he called anti-imperialism stance:
So it be to get advantage of our perfect relic and the precious experiences and achievements of toppling Shah’s dictatorship, costing the blood of many martyrs, to follow the path of the late leader [Mosaddeq] of Iran’s anti-imperialism movement so as to safeguard the relic by the continuation of our revolution and absolute effacement of imperialist domination. 
What are the proven evidences to endorse Mojahedin to be true Mosaddeqists as they claim? Did Mosaddeq invited, and even incited, the imperialists he objected to deploy their war machine, now already running in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Iran? Iran’s nuclear program now nationalized the same as the oil in Mosaddeq’s era, has perturbed the exploiting powers at Iran’s nuclear development. Unlike Mosaddeq to promote the national will, Iran’s nuclear file has turned to be an apparatus in hands of Mojahedin to widen the already existing breach between the US and Iran. This current issue resembles the anti-nationalist moves by some dissident currents hindering Mosaddeq’s oil nationalization move that eventually brought about his downfall. The pseudo successors of Mosaddeq have taken a completely different course in their political activities:
The course of Mosaddeq was that of a nationalist. He attempted to cut off the foreign domination in Iran to establish an independent state. It is shameful to pose a nationalist but sell itself to a country in war with Iran and to collude as a fifth column all through the war. 
Another nationalist party warned against Mojahedin’s abuse of Mosaddeq saying:
The Iranian Nation Party forewarns all Iranian men and women of the advocates of the terror and crime taking refuge under the guise of nationalism and Mosaddeqism to smear Mosaddeq’s name with their black past. 
There are many of these quotes sounding the alarm for Mojahedin’s abuse of Mosaddeq’s name and repute. Mojahedin’s struggle manner, at least at the present, in no way places them in the framework of Mosaddeqists. Only people with dim political intelligent might be attracted by Mojahedin’s nationalistic slogans to take a sect-like, terrorist group for a pro-Mosaddeq. Iranian people respect Mosaddeq’s anti-imperialism struggle to end the foreign exploitation and well recognizes the traitors wearing a nationalist mask.
. The NCRI’s rise and fall; interview with a number of the NCRI’s defectors, Iran Payvand Publication, 1381.
. Democracy Betrayed; published by the NCRI, 1995, 43.
. Islamic fundamentalism; published by the NCRI, 131.
. A collection of MKO’s statements, vol. I, Mojahedin’s Publications.
. Keyhan London Weekly, No. 495, London.
. Payam Iran, 1994.
mojahedin.ws – Bahar Irani – July 18, 2006