Despite these shifting alliances with different anti-regime factions, Graham’s underlying objective remained entirely unchanged: the total collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran, achieved through military intervention if necessary. To understand why Graham pursued this path, one must examine his ideological roots in the Reagan Doctrine, his deep-seated disbelief in diplomacy, his geopolitical alignment with regional allies like Israel, and his domestic political positioning.

The Ideology of Graham: The Reagan Doctrine and “Evil”

To understand Lindsey Graham’s steadfast advocacy for military confrontation with Iran, one must look to his political coming-of-age during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In his memoir, Graham notes that he did not possess strong political convictions until Reagan assumed the presidency. He adopted a worldview that divided the geopolitical landscape into binary forces of good and evil, heavily influenced by Reagan’s framing of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire”.

In Graham’s view, the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran represents the contemporary equivalent of this existential threat. Because Graham viewed the Iran as “inherently evil”, he constantly rejected the fundamental premise of diplomacy. This was his shared political view with Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the MEK who has always criticized the West for engagement in diplomacy calling it as “appeasement” with the Islamic Republic.

The Shift from the MEK to Reza Pahlavi: Tactical Opportunism

Graham’s shifting alliances with Iranian dissident groups reflect tactical opportunism in service of his unchanging goal of regime change. For years, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a highly organized and controversial exiled opposition group, garnered significant support from hawkish American politicians, including Graham. The MEK was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States until 2012, but it maintained a powerful lobbying apparatus in Washington, presenting itself as the viable, organized force capable of toppling the Iranian government.

However, the MEK’s history—which includes Marxist-Islamist roots, terrorist acts against Iranian civilians and authorities, and alignment with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War—made it highly unpopular among the broader Iranian domestic population. As the prospect of domestic uprisings in Iran grew, particularly during the cost-of-living and civil rights protests of recent years, Graham and other hawks pivoted toward Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince and son of the late Shah of Iran.

By embracing Pahlavi, Graham sought to justify his anti-Iran approach under a recognizable historical figure who could theoretically unite disparate opposition factions, while continuing to lobby for U.S. military backing to facilitate this transition. However, Reza Pahlavi’s inability to mobilize a cohesive, powerful domestic political movement is rooted in deep historical grievances, his support for military attack against Iran, organizational disfunction, and the shifting demographics of modern Iran. He is still criticized by Iranians for his ignorance of the crimes US and Israel committed in the air strikes against Iranian civilians including the school children in Minab.

Protecting Israel and the so-called Regional Order

Another primary driver of Graham’s hawkish stance was his absolute commitment to the security of Israel and the preservation of American hegemony in the Middle East. Graham has argued that allowing the Iranian government to survive, develop nuclear capabilities, or maintain its regional influence would result in a catastrophic security vacuum

By advocating for the total destruction of Iran’s military capacity, Graham believes the United States can permanently secure Israel, protect global shipping lanes (such as the critical Strait of Hormuz), and reassert American dominance.

The decline of Republican foreign policy apparatus

The impact of Lindsey Graham’s death on the hostile policies of the United States against Iran can be understood through several key geopolitical and legislative dimensions.

The immediate impact of his death is the removal of the most prominent, media-savvy legislative voice calling for direct military confrontation with Tehran. Without Graham’s constant agitation on national security panels and cable news, the political momentum for initiating direct military strikes or ground interventions against Iran is likely to decrease. While hostility toward Iran remains a bipartisan consensus in Washington, few lawmakers possess Graham’s willingness to openly champion high-risk military escalations.

Analysts have noted that Trump’s actual foreign policy often resembled a “Lindsey Graham foreign policy” more than an isolationist one, largely due to Graham’s personal access and persuasive abilities. Graham frequently spoke with Trump, advised him on national security, and pushed him to greenlight interventions and maintain crippling sanctions.

With Graham gone, the internal balance of power within the Republican foreign policy apparatus may shift away from neoconservative interventionism. This leaves a vacuum that could be filled by more isolationist or “restraint”-oriented advisors who favor decoupling from Middle Eastern conflicts to focus on domestic issues or great-power competition with China. Consequently, the Trump administration may face less internal pressure to escalate tensions with Iran into a hot war, potentially opening narrow pathways for diplomatic deterrence or containment rather than active military engagement.

Graham was also one of Israel’s most steadfast allies in Congress, viewing the security of the U.S. and Israel as entirely inseparable. His death deprives Israel of its most influential defender in the Senate at a time when American public opinion—including younger Republican voters—is gradually shifting toward skepticism regarding the level of U.S. support for Israeli military operations. Without Graham’s legislative maneuvering, the push to automatically underwrite regional military campaigns aimed at rolling back Iranian influence may face greater scrutiny and friction in Congress.

While Lindsey Graham’s death will not suddenly transform U.S.-Iran relations into a state of diplomacy, it significantly reduces the active legislative pressure for direct military escalation and weakens the political coalition supporting a “maximum pressure” campaign. His passing marks the fading of an era of highly interventionist American foreign policy, potentially paving the way for a more cautious, containment-oriented approach to Iran. Eventually, Iranian opposition groups like MEK and Monarchists will lose one of their tools to push for war, sanctions and pressure against Iranians.

Mazda Parsi

The post Death of Lindsey Graham, notorious hardliner against Iran appeared first on Nejat Society.

To rehabilitate its global image and gain political legitimacy, the MEK operates a multi-million-dollar international lobbying network. Rather than relying on traditional grassroots diplomacy, the group heavily relies on financial incentives—including lavish speaking fees, campaign donations, and funded travel—to secure the backing of foreign lawmakers. This transactional approach frequently attracts opportunistic political figures, many of whom have faced domestic investigations and convictions for separate financial corruption, bribery, and illegal foreign lobbying. To buy legitimacy, the group’s lobbying network includes a pattern of corrupt foreign sponsors which is extended from Baghdad to Washington.

Alia Nassif Jassim found with $15 million in cash

Alia Nassif is a former, prominent Iraqi Member of Parliament. In late June 2026, she and her son were detained in Baghdad as part of an aggressive, nationwide anti-corruption sweep led by Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi. Authorities found over 20 billion Iraqi dinars (approximately $15.5 million) and quantities of gold at her residence.

Historically, Nassif’s name has surfaced in political reporting surrounding Iraq’s interactions with the MEK. In past geopolitical contexts, particularly regarding the U.S. withdrawal and Baghdad’s evolving stance on Iranian-backed factions, observers and intelligence analysts have monitored her political alignments with the group. Following her arrest, Iraqi civil courts also ordered her to pay damages to an Interior Ministry official in late June 2026 for making defamatory media statements.

MEK’s deeply entrenched European ally

Alejo Vidal-Quadras Former European Parliament vice president and a prominent Spanish conservative leader is a vocal supporter of the Mujahedi-e Khalq. In 2013, a major investigation revealed that Vidal-Quadras’s far-right political party, Vox, was heavily financed by foreign money. Over €1 million in campaign funds was funneled to the party by Iranian dissidents which meant MEK. Vidal-Quadras later clarified that the funding was actually directed through him to launch the party.

Vidal-Quadras is one of the MEK’s most deeply entrenched European allies. He spent decades operating the Brussels-based International Committee in Search of Justice (ISJ) to lobby for the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the MEK’s political front.

Gold Bar Bob

In the United States, Former Senator Robert “Bob” Menendez, dubbed “Gold Bar Bob,” the powerful former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was convicted on 16 federal counts in July 2024. In January 2025, he was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison. The FBI raided his home and found hundreds of thousands of dollars in hidden cash, luxury vehicles, and over $100,000 worth of solid gold bars. He was convicted of taking these bribes to act as an illegal foreign agent for Egypt and Qatar and to protect corrupt businessmen.

Alongside his illegal dealings with other foreign governments, Menendez was a long-time, fierce Congressional advocate for the MEK. He frequently spoke at events organized by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities (OIAC)—the MEK’s primary U.S. advocacy arm—and aggressively lobbied the State Department on the group’s behalf. Due to his active political and propaganda support for the group, Iran officially placed Menendez on its terrorist sanction blacklist.

Mayor Rudy’s fat bank accounts

The former New York City Mayor and presidential advisor filed for bankruptcy following a $148 million defamation judgment regarding election interference. While his primary legal downfalls stem from election conspiracy indictments, federal investigators have repeatedly scrutinized his consulting business and opaque foreign cash flows under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Giuliani served as one of the MEK’s most visible, highly paid American surrogates. For years, he flew to the MEK’s headquarters in Albania and to rallies in Paris, demanding regime change alongside MEK leader Maryam Rajavi. He openly admitted to receiving lavish speaking fees from the MEK’s network, routinely pulling in tens of thousands of dollars per speech to lobby the U.S. government to legitimize the group.

Mazda Parsi

The post From Baghdad to Washington: How the MEK Aligns with Corrupt Global Politicians appeared first on Nejat Society.

Right-wing populist leader Janez Janša assumed office as Prime Minister of Slovenia in early June 2026, marking the start of his fourth term. According to DW, his new coalition government immediately sparked domestic and international controversy with divisive policies, ranging from proposed domestic tax cuts to major shifts in foreign policy.

Janša’s controversial policies include his involvement with the MEK, the formerly terrorist designated cult-like group under the ruling of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. On July 12^th, 2021, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D Group) called for clarification on PM Janez Janša’s participation in a meeting sponsored by the MEK.

The S & D group published an announcement on their website stating that they were shocked to learn that the prime minister of Slovenia, Janez Janša, whose country is chairing the EU rotating presidency, addressed an online gathering, which was organized by the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the MEK political vitrine.

“This anti-democratic, cult-like organization, which was on the EU terrorist list until 2009, has a long history of human rights abuses documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch”, the announcement read.

Moreover, Tonino Picula, S&D spokesperson on foreign affairs and Jytte Guteland, S&D shadow rapporteur on Iran, made the following statement:

“Support for a group with such a violent, anti-democratic record, at the level of the prime minister of a country holding the rotating presidency of the EU, is extremely irresponsible and grave. It undermines the ongoing efforts of the EU and its High Representative Josep Borrell to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran, a key foreign-policy priority for the EU.

“We call on the EPP Group to immediately and clearly distance themselves from such destructive behavior from one of its members, and clarify whether it supports such a key EU foreign policy objective as the restoration of the nuclear agreement with Iran, or not.”

One of the first actions that the staunch supporter of Maryam Rajavi has taken is to trample on the rights of the Palestinian people. On June 28^th Slovenia Times   reported that Janša has announced plans to reverse the previous government’s 2024 recognition of the State of Palestine, claiming it violated domestic law. Additionally, the government intends to relocate the Slovenian embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If completed, Slovenia would become the first EU member state to do so.

Jerusalem is a part of the State of Palestine according to UN resolutions. That’s why, despite Israel’s requests, except for a few limited countries, the rest of the world is not willing to move its embassy to Jerusalem. In order to declare his unity with the Israel regime, which does not hesitate to commit any kind of crime against civilians and children, Janša reversed the rule of his country. This is a totally normal act by a person who ignores the five-decade long background of the MEK’s violent activities and the cult-like extremist attitudes it still maintains.

Mazda Parsi

The post Slovenian PM Janez Janša, MEK & Israel promoter appeared first on Nejat Society.

There is a strange ritual in Washington whenever Iran is discussed. The language begins with democracy, women’s rights, non-proliferation and regional stability. It then somehow ends with sanctions, threats, aircraft carriers, television panels and, eventually, bombs. Since Washington withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement, coercion has been sold as concern. In May 2026, even as a U.S. peace proposal circulated, Trump was still threatening renewed attacks and demanding that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The gap between vocabulary and policy is no longer hidden inside power. It is power.

This is the ethical collapse at the heart of America’s Iran policy. The ordinary Iranian is invoked as the object of compassion, then made to live under policies designed to squeeze the country until daily life becomes the battlefield. Sanctions tighten through banks, shipping, medicine, food prices, import costs and family savings.

Washington may insist that pressure is targeted, but the consequences do not remain inside a ministerial office. They travel through ports, exchange rates, hospitals and kitchens. A policy that claims to stand with Iranians while making the horizon narrower for them has lost the right to call itself humane.

War is not born only when a missile leaves a launcher. It is prepared in hearings, studio interviews, think-tank papers, donor meetings and headlines. The public is taught that diplomacy is naive, then told that force is inevitable. That pattern is visible again in the current Strait of Hormuz crisis. A waterway through which a significant share of global energy moved before the war has now become the stage for threats, sanctions and bargaining. Trump has even discussed whether to lift sanctions on Chinese firms buying Iranian oil, not as a moral question, but as a bargaining chip in a larger great-power transaction.

This is where lobbying and money matter. AIPAC describes its mission as helping pro-Israel candidates win and defeating critics of the U.S.-Israel relationship. That is legal politics, but legality is not moral neutrality. Outside groups, including AIPAC, poured roughly $70 million into six open congressional races in Illinois in 2026. The problem is not that voters hear arguments about Israel or Iran.

The problem is that a foreign-policy consensus can be purchased, disciplined and enforced until elected officials learn which red lines may end their careers. Iran policy is debated after it has already been financed.

Iran International and the Mujahedin-e Khalq reveal another layer of the same machine: the conversion of exile politics into a Western theatre of legitimacy. Iran International has long faced serious questions about opaque Saudi-linked funding, while the channel has denied government influence. The MEK was removed from the U.S. terrorism list in 2012 and later courted by former U.S. officials as a possible interlocutor. The deeper issue is not simply funding or history. It is substitution. Complex Iranian society, with all its classes, memories, losses and political instincts, is flattened into English-language soundbites and conference-stage slogans. The exile microphone becomes useful precisely when it confirms what Washington already wants to hear.

Human rights language should protect people from being instrumentalised. In the American debate on Iran, it too often does the opposite. Iranian women, students, workers and families are invoked as moral witnesses, but they are rarely allowed to define the remedy. Their suffering becomes portable: carried into congressional speeches, cable-news segments and donor dinners, then used to justify policies they did not choose. Solidarity would mean lowering the temperature, opening diplomatic space and refusing to turn a nation into a laboratory for coercion. What Washington offers instead is pity with a policy memo attached.

The domestic politics are also revealing. As the war and blockade pushed oil toward $109 a barrel, Americans were asked to absorb the cost as proof of resolve. Neutral ships became bargaining symbols in a conflict sold as humanitarian management. New sanctions on buyers of Iranian oil moved through the same logic: punish the channels of survival, then call the pain leverage. Even diplomacy is framed as pressure by other means, not as a recognition that regional security cannot be built over the heads of the people who live there.

A serious Iran policy would separate the Iranian people from the uses others make of their suffering. It would return diplomacy to the centre, recognise the limits of force, and stop treating sanctions as a painless alternative to war. Above all, it would admit that democracy cannot be delivered by networks that profit from fear, exile spectacle and regime-change fantasy.

America’s crisis is not only strategic. It is ethical. It has learned to speak the language of human rights while building the infrastructure of coercion. That is why war with Iran is manufactured first in Washington’s money, media and moral imagination.

Jenny Williams, Middle East Monitor

The post How Washington profits from Iran’s pain appeared first on Nejat Society.

Maryam Rajavi’s presence in the European Parliament playing the part of a defender of human rights was a disgraceful and contradictory performance that drew criticism from many Iranians around the world.

Maryam Rajavi, as a person who is severe suppresser of critic and dissent in her organizational structure, caused shame and scandal to certain officials of the European Parliament on April 22 by being received at one of the halls of this institution in Brussels.

In response to such a scandal, some former members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) expressed their anger at this move by the European Parliament, condemned it, and published some of their memories on social networks, testifying about the gross violations of human rights in the MEK’s cult-like structure.

A defector of the group, Reza Gooran while condemning the European Parliament’s action, referred to the psychological repression of dissident members of the group. He cited from Massoud Rajavi the disappeared husband of Maryam Rajavi that “a dissident member deserves death sentence, but we don’t have a death sentence because we are in Iraq”.

This former member of the Cult of Rajavi, who himself experienced imprisonment and torture in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, also testified that “the cult’s torturers murdered a protester and critic who was a prisoner in the Ashraf Camp torture chamber.”

Some other Iranian users of social networks sent letters to the European Parliament, making the authorities aware of their reprehensible behavior in accepting the leader of a terrorist group with a long history of violence, terror, betrayal and sectarianism.

One of the letters from Iranian users addressed to the European Parliament, which is being circulated on social media, is as follows:

Subject: You invite Maryam Rajavi – Are you endorsing a terrorist cult?

To: Members of the European Parliament

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

On April 22, 2026, you invited Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq), to speak in your parliament. You applauded her.

Let me ask you directly:

Do you actually support what she represents?

Because her organization has a documented history of:

Killing over 17,000 innocent Iranian civilians including a 3‑year‑old girl.

Fighting alongside Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq war – the same Saddam you later condemned for genocide

Murdering 25,000 Iraqi

Kurds and Shias in 1991.

Running a cult (not a political group) – with forced divorces, brainwashing, and documented sexual exploitation of women by Masoud Rajavi, her husband.

Yet you invite her. Give her a stage. Applaud her.

So my question is simple

Are you thinking exactly like her? Are you her supporter?

Or did you simply not care to check the crimes behind the applause?

I used to believe the European Parliament stood for human rights.

Now I see for you, some murderers are acceptable as long as they are useful.

Shame on this double standard.

Sincerely,

A citizen who still remembers what human rights actually mean

In all the years that the Nejat Society and many other human rights organizations have been trying to shed light on the terrorist nature of the MEK and the human rights violations within this organization, the number of documents and evidence available in the global information space has increased day by day.

Despite all the accusations that the Rajavis have made against the whistleblowers, they still reveal that whenever MEK members refused to continue cooperating with the group and asked to leave it, they were subjected to physical attacks, humiliation, threats, and peer pressure at the instigation of commanders, mostly led by Massoud Rajavi. In these situations, the victims are subjected to severe verbal and physical abuse

Maryam Rajavi’s pro-democracy gesture is in complete contrast to the violent and ruthless actions of her five decades of organizational activity. Her presence in the European Parliament means using the issue of executions and human rights violations as a tool for political purposes. We cannot claim freedom, democracy, and the defense of the rights of the Iranian people and turn a blind eye to the behavior of Maryam and Massoud Rajavi against their fellow Iranians.

Mazda Parsi

The post Iranians condemn Maryam Rajavi’s presence in the European Parliament appeared first on Nejat Society.

Ritter believes that the United States is using diplomacy less as a route to agreement than as a tactical tool to buy time, apply pressure, and shape the conditions for confrontation. In his remarks to the Tehran Times, he outlined what he sees as the real thinking behind U.S. and Israeli demands, warned against misreading Iran’s deterrence, and described the potentially catastrophic consequences of a war for the region in which the MEK, the monarchists and the separatist groups take part.

“The United States, on its own admission, orchestrates a currency collapse in Iran,” Scott Ritter told Tehran Times about the recent protests in Iran. “People went to the streets in legitimate protest, which the Iranian government did not violently suppress. Then that protest was hijacked by the CIA, by Mossad, with agents inside who created violence.”

Ritter believes that Israel and the U.S. are fomenting unrests to lead a regime change project in Iran besides military invasion. He explains: “So, when we bomb Iran—and I unfortunately believe that we will bomb Iran—we will be seeking to suppress the regime’s ability to respond to civil unrest. We will encourage uprisings and suppress the government’s capacity to respond. The objective, therefore, is to have the government collapse.”

According to this prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy,  this is American’s vision about Iran following a US-Israeli invasion on this nation: “you’re going to have ISIS-type trucks running through your cities, with gunmen from the Mujahedin-e Khalq and gunmen from the monarchists, who are going to run in and say, “We’re now in charge.”

Ritter believes that the Iranian government needs to capture the emotion of the Iranian nation and use it to weaponize itself, to make itself invulnerable to efforts by outside powers to divide it.

As an American, he says: “That’s what we try to do. We support the MEK, we support the monarchists, we support the Kurds, we support Azeri separatists, we support the Baluch, and we exploit economic divisions in the mainstream Iranian population. The United States, Israel, and others are looking to fracture Iran, to break it apart, to cause it to collapse from within.”

He suggests that the Iranian government and the Iranian people have to find a way to unify themselves. “If not, then we’ve just told you what we look for: the divisions, and we exploit the divisions,” he states.

Ritter has previously written on the role of the MEK as operatives of the US intelligence in Iran. In 2005, Ritter revealed that the MEK had begun receiving training from the CIA. In a 2006 interview, Ritter described the MEK as a “cult” and a “terrorist” group, accusing elements in the U.S. government of using them to destabilize Iran. Ritter has also noted that the MEK has often acted as a source of intelligence for Western and Israeli officials regarding Iranian nuclear sites.

The post Scott Ritter: Gunmen from the MEK in Iranian Cities appeared first on Nejat Society.

Kiriakou asserted that while CIA officers swear an oath to protect the Constitution upon entering service, many fail to uphold that commitment. Recalling his first day at the agency, Kiriakou remarked: “When I stood with about 300 others and raised my hand to swear to protect the Constitution, I had to conclude that I was the only one there who truly meant it.”

In 2002, Kiriakou was asked if he wished to be trained in “enhanced interrogation techniques.” He recounted identifying the initiative as a torture program and stating it was illegal. According to Kiriakou, officials responded by saying, “It’s not illegal; the President approved it and the Department of Justice authorized it.” He emphasized that he was the only member of a 14-person team to refuse the offer.

Addressing the assassination programs conducted during the Obama administration, Kiriakou described how then-CIA Director John Brennan met with White House and Department of Justice officials every Tuesday morning to finalize a list of individuals to be killed that week.

Kiriakou described the process in stark terms: “Once the names were agreed upon, teams would deploy across the globe to carry out the assassinations, only to reconvene for the following week’s list.”

He also touched upon the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” reminding viewers that sending suspects to countries where they are known to face torture is illegal. Citing the example of a Tunisian suspect captured in Afghanistan and rendered to Egypt, Kiriakou argued that such practices lack any legitimate legal foundation.

Regarding the recent unrest and street demonstrations in Iran, Kiriakou contended that these events are the result of a joint CIA and Mossad operation. Referencing public statements made by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Kiriakou stated, “We know this is a Mossad-CIA operation thanks to Pompeo’s own comments.”

Kiriakou noted that while the CIA does not typically maintain personnel on the ground, Mossad has an extensive field presence. He alleged that both agencies work in close cooperation with the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). He reminded the audience that the MEK had previously attempted to assassinate a US ambassador and was once designated as a terrorist organization before being removed from the list in 2009 during Hillary Clinton’s tenure.

Kiriakou also highlighted the organization’s lobbying efforts in Washington, noting that “everyone from Rudy Giuliani to Howard Dean began lobbying for the MEK.”

Commenting on the burning of mosques and fire trucks during the Iranian demonstrations, Kiriakou argued these actions do not align with demands for democracy. “If you are demonstrating for democracy and freedom, why would you set fire to mosques and fire engines? Mossad and the CIA want chaos in Iran,” he evaluated.

The program also addressed remarks by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent regarding the devaluation of the Iranian Rial. Evaluating Bessent’s admission that economic chaos was being used to trigger street protests, Kiriakou stated such actions fall under “covert action,” which requires presidential authorization.

“To implement a plan of this nature, one needs a ‘finding’—a document of authorization signed by the CIA General Counsel, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, the National Security Council, and ultimately the President,” Kiriakou explained.

Turning to Israeli operational methods, Kiriakou claimed that Mossad utilizes Afghan refugees in Iran for intelligence gathering. “The Israelis take Afghan refugees who are in desperate straits and have no access to state services, paying them $200 a month to carry out surveillance tasks,” he alleged.

In response to questions about whether Saudi Arabia possesses nuclear weapons, Kiriakou cited information from the legendary CIA operations officer Duane Clarridge.

Kiriakou stated that Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s nuclear program. “The Saudis provided the money the Pakistanis needed to develop a nuclear bomb as a counterweight to India. In return, I assume the Pakistanis have shared those bombs with the Saudis,” he said. While it remains unclear if Saudi Arabia possesses a missile system capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Kiriakou emphasized that their access to nuclear weapons is highly probable.

Evaluating the links between Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua and the influx of cocaine into the US during the 1980s, Kiriakou stated that the CIA’s role in this process is documented.

He noted that while the CIA armed Contra groups in the north, groups in the south were smuggling Colombian cocaine into the US, and the agency, at the very least, turned a blind eye to the traffic. Rejecting claims by his former colleague Jack Devine that the CIA was not involved in the drug trade, Kiriakou countered: “I believe Jack Devine is mistaken. The evidence shows the CIA facilitated the importation of cocaine.”

Kiriakou argued that Congressional oversight of the CIA has weakened significantly since the 1980s, signaling the end of the era defined by the Church and Pike Committees (1975–1982). He suggested that current intelligence committees act more as supporters of the agency than as overseers. “The CIA pushes the boundaries until someone pushes back. If no one resists, they gain new ground and they never give it back,” he remarked.

Finally, commenting on newly surfaced documents regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, Kiriakou noted that the possibility of Epstein having ties to the CIA has strengthened. Kiriakou mentioned that Epstein’s lawyers had approached the CIA to confirm a relationship between Epstein and the agency, though no response was given.

“Epstein was seeking a role with the CIA, and it appears he had similar relationships with MI6 and the Israelis,” Kiriakou concluded.

Harici.com.tr

The post Former CIA officer Alleges Joint CIA-Mossad Campaign to Destabilize Iran appeared first on Nejat Society.

According to numerous sources, public perception is that the MEK has little domestic legitimacy in Iran and is widely viewed across the Iranian political spectrum as a “traitorous cult”. The popular slogans chanted by demonstrators indicate that the MEK is widely rejected by them. No one in the streets of Iran chants pro-MEK slogans.

However, the MEK’s mercenaries in Iran, called “resistance units”, are skillful exploiters of legitimate grievances in order to incite violence, and fabricate information to project a fake image of their popularity for their ranks escalating confrontation between true protesters and the government forces.
During three decades of multi-million dollar lobbying in the West, the MEK has been successful to sell itself as a viable alternative for the Iranian government to some Western politicians. The paid sponsors of the MEK in the West fail to align with the political realities inside Iran. According to Mali Rezaei of the abc.net this reinforces “a sense that international actors neither understand nor prioritize Iranian society itself.”

“By treating groups like the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as representative of the broad Iranian opposition, despite the group’s widespread unpopularity inside Iran due to its wartime collaboration with Saddam Hussein and perceived political opportunism, external actors have further distorted international understandings of dissent,” Rezaei writes. “For many Iranians, this has reinforced the belief that foreign governments continue to misrepresent or override the genuine aspirations emerging from within the country.”

Shabnam Assadollahi, the Canadian human rights advocate and freelance journalist of Iranian origin, writes about the MEK’s unpopularity on the Times of Israel warning the west to “stop playing games with Iran” because “the MEK does not speak for Iranians.”
She also explains that the MEK is widely despised across Iran’s political spectrum, viewed as a traitorous cult, not a credible opposition and finally rejected in public protests.

Legitimizing the MEK undermines democratic values and supporting the group contradicts commitments to democracy, human rights and freedom. This “positions Western governments against the clearly expressed will of the Iranian people”, asserts Assadollahi.

This blogger of the Times of Israel lists the MEK’s terrorist record, cult-like authoritarianism and opportunistic alliances as factors that make it notorious for Iranian public opinion. According to her, Iranian protesters explicitly reject MEK terrorists, separatism and foreign-engineered political projects. And, this reflects their political maturity and historical awareness.

Rezaei and Assadollahi like many other western-based Iranian journalists believe that western states should correct their perception of the Iranians’ aspirations. They must terminate any engagement with the MEK and its affiliated groups like the so-called National Council of Resistance (NCR). Ending participation in MEK events, rallies, and conferences, western politicians should prohibit official endorsements or symbolic legitimization of the group.

In order to get the trust of the Iranian public, Western high profiles should acknowledge the Iranian rejection of the MEK and other extremist separatist groups and respect Iran’s territorial integrity and national unity.

Mazda Parsi

The post MEK’s sponsors must acknowledge Iranian rejection of the group appeared first on Nejat Society.

Another bad news for the MEK is that Donald Trump has blacklisted some ardent supporters of the MEK for his second administration. The list includes Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney who served in his first administration and who have so far been paid hefty amounts of money by the MEK for speaking at their events.

However, there is only one politician who is under sever scrutiny because of his visit with Maryam Rajavi and his advocacy for the so-called National Council of Resistance (NCR), who will serve at Trump’s second administration. General Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, spoke at the NCR’s conference. NCR is the MEK’s political vitrine used to attract Western politicians by its pro-democracy gestures and its main figure is Maryam Rajavi, the so-called president elect who has not been elected by anyone except by her husband, Massoud Rajavi, the disappeared leader of the Rajavi’s Cult of Personality.

Keith Kellogg was blasted by the Iranians in social media. They condemned him of being bribed to lend his credibility to the MEK and considered it as a grave mistake. The critics of Kellogg reminded him that the MEK is a terrorist cult responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people including American citizens.

Trendy hashtag against the MEK on X

The Iranian users and even western journalists warned the US general that the MEK do not represent the Iranian people in any way and will have no place in the future of a free Iran. These are a few of the most reposted posts against Keith Kellogg’s “shameful” embracing of the MEK:

*The dreaded terrorist and criminal organization, #MEKterrorists OR #NCIRterrorists has no place in Iran and is deeply hated by Iranians , You have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of our country. You have taken blood money.

*it is truly shameful that as a retired U.S. Army general, you support a terrorist group like the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which has a history of killing and assassinating Iranians, as well as several American soldiers and colonels. This group was on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations until just a few years ago. In case you’ve forgotten, let me remind you of the names of three American colonels who were brutally assassinated by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in Iran in the 1970s.
Say their names out loudly:
Paul R. Shaffer
John H. Turner
Lewis Lee Hawkins
These three American colonels were killed by MEK in the 70’s.

*Why are American politicians endorsing and taking money from a former terrorist group #MEKterrorists bloodthirsty cult that has killed American soldiers?

*That woman #MaryamRajavi killed thousands of Iranians and Americans and even her own people.

The post Trump’s Ukraine envoy slammed by Iranians on social media appeared first on Nejat Society.

The MEK’s Marxist-Islamist Roots and History of Violence

The MEK’s ideological foundation combines Marxism and Islamism, a mix that fundamentally conflicts with democratic principles. The group’s history is marred by acts of terrorism, including assassinations of U.S. military personnel and attacks on Iranian civilians. Although removed from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list in 2012, its violent past cannot be dismissed. Supporting a group with such a record risks undermining U.S. efforts to champion democracy and human rights while tarnishing America’s image in the region.

Unpopularity Among Iranians

The MEK’s collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War is a source of profound resentment among Iranians, who see the group as traitorous. This association has rendered the MEK irreparably unpopular within Iran, where it has no meaningful grassroots support. Backing such a discredited group would alienate the Iranian people, strengthen anti-American narratives propagated by the regime, and delegitimize broader U.S. efforts to support the Iranian opposition.

Cult-Like, Authoritarian Structure

The MEK functions as a closed, authoritarian organization, with numerous reports of coercive practices, suppression of dissent, and psychological manipulation within its ranks. Its cult-like nature and lack of internal democracy make it incompatible with the values of freedom and pluralism that the U.S. seeks to promote. Supporting the MEK risks replacing one authoritarian regime with another, perpetuating instability rather than fostering genuine democratic reform.

Manufactured Illusion of Support

While the MEK has cultivated a public image of being a powerful and organized opposition group, much of its influence relies on financial backing and lobbying rather than genuine grassroots or domestic support. The group has poured significant resources into courting politicians and hosting high-profile events, but these efforts do not translate to actual legitimacy or broad influence among Iranians inside Iran or the diaspora.

Lack of Grassroots Base

A truly powerful and effective political organization would rely on widespread popular support and activism within the country it claims to represent. The MEK, however, has virtually no grassroots presence in Iran, where it is overwhelmingly despised for its collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Without domestic legitimacy, its perceived power as a lobby is limited to its external public relations efforts.

Dependency on Nontransparent Financial Resources

The MEK’s activities rely heavily on external funding, including contributions from wealthy donors rather than independent resources or support from Iranian communities. This lack of financial transparency undermines its claims of being a genuine, independent political movement. Instead, it portrays the MEK as a hired influence group, driven by external interests rather than representing the authentic aspirations of the Iranian people.

Shallow Political Connections

While the MEK has succeeded in securing the support of some high-profile figures, these endorsements are often the result of financial incentives, speaking fees, or a lack of understanding about the group’s true nature. Many policymakers and officials who initially supported the MEK later distance themselves after learning more about its violent past, cult-like structure, and lack of credibility.

Failing to Shift the Narrative in Iran

Despite years of lobbying and spending on international campaigns, the MEK has failed to significantly impact the narrative or political landscape inside Iran. This inability to resonate with the Iranian public, combined with its reliance on external lobbying, suggests that its perceived power is superficial and lacks real-world impact.

While the MEK may appear organized and influential on the surface due to its lobbying activities and financial resources, its lack of domestic legitimacy, grassroots support, and dependency on external sponsorship make it a weak and unsustainable political force. Its perceived power as a lobby is more an illusion created through financial investment than a reflection of genuine political strength or credibility.

The post Supporting the MEK, a Strategic Mistake by US senators appeared first on Nejat Society.