The protests are primarily about environmental concerns, land ownership, transparency, accountability and alleged preference toward foreign investors connected to Trump family. Many protesters are using slogans such as “Albania is not for sale” and are criticizing what they see it as an opaque government decision-making.

However, Albanian prime minister Edi Rama on Friday accused the Iranian government of stirring the ongoing rallies in Tirana. He claims that Iran is behind protests against Kushner resort using disinformation.

Albania’s close alignment with US policy preferences, particularly regarding the hosting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), contributed to a significant recalibration of Tehran’s stance toward Tirana. This process accelerated the diplomatic breakdown and culminated in cyberattacks attributed to Iran against Albanian state institutions, in past years.

Iran was aware of the Western Balkans’ strategic sensitivity and the dominant influence of Western institutions in the region but its limited engagement in bilateral cultural ties became increasingly strained following Albania’s decision to host the MEK, a formerly designated terrorist group with a long record of acts of violence against Iranian civilians as well as officials.

The relocation of MEK members to Albania, strongly supported by the USA on the alleged humanitarian and security grounds, marked a critical turning point in bilateral relations. For Tehran government, the presence of an organized opposition group operating from Albanian territory was perceived as a direct challenge to its political and security interests.

Nevertheless, while Edi Rama is trying to project his political and economical issues onto Iran, the protests in Albania are primarily domestic in nature, according to the mainstream media such as Reuters, The Guardian and AP. The protesters’ call is centered on environmental concerns, allegations of corruption and broader dissatisfaction with the government. Protesters have even called for Rama’s resignation.

Rama’s accusations on Iran seems to be a political attempt to reframe a domestic controversy in national-security terms. The MEK’s presence in Albania itself can become a major protest demand. A protest movement focused on transparency and accountability could easily expand into other demands. This would fit naturally into a broader movement criticizing opaque decision making and insufficient public consultation.

If public attention shifts towards government transparency, the political outcome can be that more Albanians begin asking why such an important foreign policy and security decision –sheltering thousands of members of a cult-like extremist group– has received limited public scrutiny or parliamentary debate. The MEK may become one of several examples cited by activists who seek greater disclosure and public oversight of major government decisions. Thus, wider concerns will be raised by civil society and governance observers about transparency, consultation and accountability in Albania.

Mazda Parsi

The post Will the Protests in Albania Expand to MEK’s Controversial Presence? appeared first on Nejat Society.

The MEK claimed that 250 of its members took part in the assault and that 100 were killed in the operation. If true, it would mark one of the most dramatic confrontations in the Islamic Republic’s recent history, as a few days later a devastating war broke out between Iran and the murderers of the supreme leader, his family and a number of government authorities.

At the time, serious questions began to surface about the MEK claim. There were fragmented reports that seemed, at first sight, to find the whole story implausible.

There were no footage and no photographs on the so-called operation. No verified eyewitness accounts were published. No names or images of the alleged dead were reported. Not a single confirmed report of shooting in that tightly controlled area of Tehran, where such an operation—especially one resulting in 100 fatalities—would have been impossible to conceal. There were obviously no tangible reports.

Ridiculously, the MEK used an image from a previous Daesh attack on Iran’s parliament in 2017, in its report about the alleged operation. That photo alone was enough to scatter the authenticity of the entire narrative of the MEK.

Already despised by the Iranian public, its recent claims outpaced reality once more. The result was not the group’s empowerment but it was an erosion of its near-to-zero credibility. The Iranians never entrust their future to terrorists who rely on unverifiable propaganda.

In the end, the MEK’s uncorroborated and exaggerated claim that 100 of its members were killed in the attack, while 150 survived, only damages its own credibility. Such childish but boastfully announced claim does not project strength; it exposes the lies about all those so-called “resistance units” allegedly operating on behalf of the group in Iran. It undermines its five-decade long efforts to seek to show off as a viable alternative to the Iranian government.
p
Mazda Parsi

The post The MEK had lost total credibility before the US-Israel war on Iran appeared first on Nejat Society.

The MEK leaders have always claimed to own the most organized establishment to replace the Iranian government but they deny the very important fact: they are hated by the Iranian people.

Even in the dark days of bombardment of Iranian cities by US and Israel, where many civilians including children and students are killed, the MEK leaders do not express any sympathy for the victims who are their country-men.

Instead, the group’s leader Maryam Rajavi speaks of the “transitional government” and her so- ten-point plan for future of Iran of which no article is observed in the ruling of her cult of personality.

The MEK’s army, the so-called National Liberation army was Saddam Hussein’s private army in the 8 years of Iran-Iraq war. The MEK forces attacked Iranian towns killing civilians and army soldiers who were their country-men. There are many women and children among Iranian victims of the MEK regardless of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites whom they killed in the operations that they aided Saddam to suppress the uprisings.

Considering the MEK’s violent background as a Saddam’s accomplice that betrayed its own people, the international community leaders are aware of the group’s unpopularity among Iranians inside and outside the country. Despite the West’s animosity towards Iranian nation which is clear in the military strikes against Iranian civilians, they never recognize the MEK as a viable alternative for the Islamic Republic.

Even in case of Reza Pahlavi, The US president, Donald Trump does recognize him an appropriate option because he thinks that the alleged person should be selected by the people inside Iran, let alone Maryam Rajavi and Massoud Rajavi who are widely despised by the Iranians of all political and social walks.

Mazda Parsi

The post MEK has never been an option for Iran’s ruling appeared first on Nejat Society.

Here are four deteriorating parts that are considered to be taken by the MEK defined by four different experts with different political views:

The MEK unable to unify opposition

For Middle East expert Andreas Krieg, the MEK’s ability to unify opposition is inadequate. “When it comes to MEK, it is important to separate perceived reach from real on-the-ground traction,” Krieg told DW.

About the MEK’s deficiencies he says: “The organization is disciplined, media-savvy, and able to generate noise, lobbying pressure, and messaging volume from abroad. However, it has deep legitimacy problems among many Iranians because of its history, internal-control allegations, and its long exile posture.”

Krieg confirms that the MEK is a useful tool for disinformation campaign launched by warmongers and anti-Iran hawks. “The MEK is easy for multiple actors to instrumentalize in the information space, including anti-Iran hawks in the US and Israel,” he told DW.

While the MEK’s spokesman in Washington, Ali Safavi tells DW that his group’s “resistance units direct, coordinate and organize the resistance against the repressive forces”, Kreig clarifies that “it does not at all have any role to play in leading these protests”.

A chameleon cult to decoy the West

The MEK’s illegitimacy among Iranians has been widely stated by experts. The American historian, foreign policy analyst and government adviser Michael Rubin once more states that the recent Iranian protests have confirmed that the MEK has no backing or legitimacy among Iranians. This time he asked the secretary of the US state department to re-designate the group.

Rubin believes that the MEK is a cult-like political chameleon that “shifts its rhetoric to support whomever it thought its patrons might be.”

“When it solicits Congress, it feigns commitment to democracy, even as its actions and its internal rhetoric suggest it remains unchanged and unabashedly anti-American,” he wrote in the Middle East Forum referring to the group’s anti-American background including the assassination of the US citizens in Iran in the 1970s.

The MEK deteriorates everything

As an anti-Iran Israeli, Zina Rakhamilova of Israel Hayom finds the MEK “a threat to Iran’s revolution”.

Rakhamilova is a supporter of Reza Pahlavi who is concerned about the MEK’s abstracting role in her “struggle” against Iranian government. “On the surface, the MEK’s opposition to the regime may appear principled, but this is misleading, and non-Iranian observers should not be deceived,” she writes. “The MEK is a leftist group that historically aligned with Muslim extremists to topple the government of the day. Their past shows consistent antipathy toward democracy, human rights, and the West, and should they ever rule Iran, the standard of living and humanitarian situation would likely continue to deteriorate.”

She correctly warns about the undemocratic and violent nature of the MEK presenting an example: On January 11, during a pro-Shah rally in Los Angeles, a U-Haul truck drove into the crowd, injuring several protesters. The truck was emblazoned with MEK slogans “NO SHAH. NO REGIME. USA: DON’T REPEAT 1953. NO MULLAH”, aligning with the MEK’s historical modus operandi.

The correspondent of Israel Hayom reminds Western politicians about the MEK’s terrorist activities and its alliance with Saddam Hussein to suppress the Kurdish uprisings against Iraqi Baath regime. She notifies, “US State Department reports document acts of violence against civilians. Maryam Rajavi reportedly instructed fighters: “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards”

MEK agents for Mossad-run sabotage in Iran

Regarding the recent unrest and killings in the streets of Iran, the American whistleblower and former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, revealed 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 MEK.

The MEK’s history as well as its current cult-like structure has made it overlooked for Iranians inside and outside the country. Thus, for decades, Maryam Rajavi and her disappeared husband, Massoud Rajavi, has made efforts to rebrand their group as a democratic alternative to the Iranian government but these days, they are no more in the center of attention except for some experts or journalists to make the world aware about their threat for the future of Iran.

Mazda Parsi

The post Western experts warn about MEK threat for future Iran appeared first on Nejat Society.

The Free Iran rally was held by the MEK in Berlin, Germany, on February 7, 2026, to mark the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. The event had been organized more than a month in advance and, after spending a lot of money on advertising, in order to prepare a rented crowd, finally took place on Saturday.

MEK’s rented crowd Berlin   As predicted and previously reported, a large part of the crowd was consisted of non-Iranians, and the rest were a few MEK sympathizers who had been brought in from all over the world. These people literally came from Scandinavia, all over Europe and Germany and even the United States and Canada to fill the ranks; to make the rally seem crowded.

This type of crowd mobilization comes at a high cost to the MEK. Add the cost of transportation, flights, hotels, food and drinks to bring in thousands of people to the five-digit speaking fees that they pay the speakers.

Bused-MEK crowd

Despite spending this much, the Iranians did not allow the MEK to feed the media with their fake stories and narratives from their fake popularity among Iranians. Cyberspace and social networks are flooded with images and videos confirming the large presence of Ukrainian, Syrian, Afghan and Kurdish refugees among the participants.

Images from official German news agencies, including Berlin Berlin TV, show the presence of numerous Ukrainian and Syrian flags, as well as booths distributing free sandwiches and drinks and the demonstrators who are served.

MEK-run Sandwich Booth

Images and videos have also been released of participants riding buses from all over Europe and Germany to the event, which are good to see to know the type of citizens who attended the rally. There are non-Iranians on these buses who are heading to Berlin for a free one-day trip.

MEK’s rented crowd Berlin

In a video, an Iranian user enters the ranks of participants who are having fun and chatting, and in a quick move he asks random people about their nationality. Before being pushed away, he reveals that most of the people attending the event are not Iranian.

The documented reports show that the support Maryam Rajavi has is largely paid. The MEK’s propaganda machine has to lie about the number of people who attend their rallies. The group’s rebranding attempts are failed.

Mazda Parsi

The post Reports on the MEK-Fabricated Free Iran Rally in Berlin appeared first on Nejat Society.

According to many reports, the Iranian opposition remains ideologically diverse and often fragmented. On January 27^th, Natiq Malikzada and Trevor Filseth of the National Interest also suggested that “anti-regime” sentiment in Iran comes in many flavors. They try to answer the critical question: “What’s Wrong with Iran’s Opposition?”

According to Malikzada and Filseth, the Iranian opposition groups are “divided by identity, history, borders, language, religion, class, and even what the word ‘Iran’ should mean.” They present a brief but quiet comprehensive history and analysis of Iranian opposition groups of which this is about the MEK:

The other major Iranian opposition exile movement is the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), better known in the West as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). It, too, is unpalatable to a majority of Iranians.

The MEK began as a movement of Iranian leftists with Islamist ideas. Under the leadership of student leader Massoud Rajavi, it carried out bombings inside Iran, first against the Shah and later against Khomeini. After the group was banned inside Iran in 1981, it struck an alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War and established military bases in Iraq that it used to launch attacks on Iranian troops. The MEK has gone to great lengths to stress that it never actually fought alongside Saddam’s forces—yet its members still fought against their own countrymen during a war for national survival, giving them a status within today’s Iran akin to that of Benedict Arnold in the United States.

For this reason, the MEK has virtually no chance to build a mass movement inside Iran. Outside Iran, the organization has gained some measure of influence, hosting prominent Western politicians at its conferences and gaining US congressional support for its “10-point plan” for a post-Islamic Republic government. However, it has also faced persistent criticism over its cult-like structure and practices. For instance, it requires that its members remain celibate, and insists that Rajavi—who has not been seen since 2003—is still alive and in hiding. (His wife, Maryam Rajavi, leads the group in his absence.) The group also carries the stigma of having been listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in the United States until 2012.

Owing to these controversies, the MEK has few friends across the broader opposition universe, which regards it as compromised and untrustworthy. In turn, the MEK tends to treat other opposition currents as unserious or irrelevant, proffering its own structure and messaging discipline as the only credible alternatives to the Islamic Republic. These tendencies make it virtually impossible for the group to unify with any other opposition movements—and given the MEK’s baggage, it is unclear if such unity would even be helpful to the anti-regime cause.

The post The National Interests: The MEK Has Too Many Skeletons in Its Closet appeared first on Nejat Society.

Elona Elezi, DW

The post Middle East expert to DW: MEK has deep legitimacy problems appeared first on Nejat Society.

It depends on who’s proposing third option

The MEK’s background and nature are not compatible with the principals of third option. The apparent principals of third option are the followings:

1. No Foreign War: The strategy avoids any form of foreign military involvement in Iran
2. No Appeasement: It rejects negotiations and any diplomatic approach toward the Iranian government.
3. Regime Change by the Iranian People and Resistance: The core tenet is that regime change should be achieved through the efforts of the Iranian people and their organized resistance

The first principal is unheard of in the MEK’s background. The MEK was the only group that chose armed struggle is its fight against the Iranian newly established government in 1980s. It sided with Iraqi dictator in the first foreign war against Iran. It acted like the private army of Saddam Hussein in intelligence and military operations against Iranians.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the MEK was disarmed by the US military. Since then, it has been cooperating with the US and Israeli intelligence services and military in order to destabilize the government in Tehran.

Maryam Rajavi rejects diplomatic solutions because negotiation and diplomacy has never been a part of MEK’s strategy. The group has always been violently suppressing its opponents, critics and even its own dissident members. The only diplomatic effort made by the MEK has been through its hefty multi-million-dollar lobbying campaign in western parliaments.

The most controversial principle of third option is the last one: Regime change by the Iranian people and resistance. Maryam Rajavi has consistently emphasized that the Iranian people possess the essential elements for change.

The “organized resistance” that Rajavi refers to is allegedly the MEK’s network of supporters, activists, and members, both inside and outside Iran, who are committed to overthrowing the current regime. Where are these people?

It was just a few weeks ago that the New York Times reported that the MEK has almost zero support inside Iran.

The MEK dreams of mobilizing such a network to create a broad-based movement capable of challenging the Iranian government’s authority. However, the reality of the Iranian political scene indicated the opposite. Iranians of any political hate the MEK. Even if they want regime change, they do not trust Maryam Rajavi.

Democratic values and Third Option

According to Maryam Rajavi’s claims, the Third Option is presented as a democratic alternative to war and appeasement, with the goal of establishing a free, secular, and non-nuclear Iran. Its framework often highlights the MEK’s commitment to democratic values, human rights, and a secular government in Iran. This is intended to appeal to a broad range of Iranians and garner international support for the movement.

The success of third option highly depends on the ability of the MEK to effectively mobilize and organize the Iranian population. The strategy has been the subject of considerable debate and scrutiny, with critics questioning the MEK’s past actions and its ability to represent the diverse interests of the Iranian people.

The contradiction between Maryam Rajavi’s advocacy for democratic values for Iranians and the fact that MEK has a history of violence, cult-like practices, and internal authoritarianism, is the crucial topic raised by the experts. This contradiction is a complex issue with significant implications for the MEK’s credibility and its claims to represent the Iranian people.

The MEK’s internal structure and leadership have always been subject to scrutiny. Critics have described the group as a cult, citing its strict hierarchical structure, personality cult around Massoud Rajavi (Maryam Rajavi’s husband), and thought control and isolation of members. Defectors have reported instances of forced confessions, restrictions on contact with the outside world, forced celibacy and the suppression of dissent. These practices are seen as antithetical to democratic values, which emphasize individual freedom, critical thinking, and open dialogue.

Maryam Rajavi’s leadership role in the MEK raises questions about her commitment to democratic principles. The MEK’s internal structure and past actions contradict the values she publicly espouses, and so it undermines her credibility as a champion of democracy for Iran. The MEK’s history of violence and its cult-like practices have created a significant challenge for Maryam Rajavi to reconcile her advocacy for democratic values with the reality of the organization she leads.

The core of the contradiction lies in the disparity between the MEK’s stated goals of establishing a democratic Iran and the means it has employed to achieve those goals, as well as its internal organizational structure. The use of violence, the suppression of dissent, and the cult-like practices within the MEK are seen as incompatible with the democratic values that Maryam Rajavi claims to uphold. This contradiction raises questions about the MEK’s true intentions and its ability to govern democratically if it were to come to power in Iran.

Mazda Parsi

The post Why is Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” dismissed? appeared first on Nejat Society.

According to the article “The Case for Redesignating the MEK: Learning from History” from Israel Hayom, numerous surveys, independent interviews, and media coverage indicate that inside Iran, the MEK is broadly discredited.[1] Many Iranians across generations associate the group with betrayal and violence. The article also states that the people of Iran overwhelmingly do not see the MEK as a viable or legitimate alternative to the current regime.

The MEK’s history of violence and its designation as a terrorist organization by various countries for periods also contribute to the skepticism surrounding its viability. The group was involved in armed conflict and targeted assassinations before the 1979 revolution and after, leading to its inclusion on terrorist lists by the U.S., Canada, EU, UK, and Japan for various periods between 1997 and 2013. While the MEK has since renounced violence, its past actions continue to raise concerns about its commitment to democratic principles.

Furthermore, the MEK has been accused of exhibiting cult-like characteristics, which further undermines its credibility as a democratic force. Critics have described the group as exhibiting traits of a “personality cult,” with reports of authoritarian control, enforced celibacy, and mandatory ideological re-education sessions. These practices are seen as incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society. The RAND Corporation report for the US government stated that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options,”[2]
The MEK’s internal structure and leadership also raise questions about its democratic credentials. The group’s leadership is centered around Maryam Rajavi, who is the current political leader and public face of the organization. Critics argue that the MEK’s focus on Maryam Rajavi’s “Third Option” and its insular nature do not align with the principles of a pluralistic democracy.

The article “Making Sense of the MEK” from the American Foreign Policy Council highlights the MEK’s plan for provisional rule in a half-year “transitional period” following the fall of Iran’s current government and leading to a democratic and secular Iran.[3] However, the article also notes that the group’s exclusionary nature and the distrust of other Iranian opposition elements raise questions about its ability to build a broad coalition and govern effectively.

In conclusion, the MEK’s past association with Saddam Hussein, its history of violence, its cult-like characteristics, its internal structure, all contribute to the perception that it is not a viable alternative to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mazda Parsi

Sources:
[1] The Case for Redesignating the MEK: Learning from History. [Israel Hayom]
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/04/11/the-case-for-redesignating-the-mek-learning-from-history/
[2] The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum. [RAND]
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG871.html
[3] Making Sense of the MEK. [American Foreign Policy Council]
https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/making-sense-of-the-mek

The post Why the MEK is Not Considered a Viable Alternative appeared first on Nejat Society.

The New York Times was also one of those news outlets that analyzed the main Iranian dissident groups stating that “Amid Attacks, Iran’s Exiled Opposition Remained Divided”. The article was very similar to that of Newsweek that “As Israel Eyes Regime Change, Iran’s Opposition Is Divisive and Divided.” In these articles, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Reza Pahlavi are regarded two of the main opposition groups against the Islamic Republic.

However, the MEK’s propaganda media slammed New York Times considering the article “crafted to undermine the MEK.”
Ali Safavi as a foreign affairs spokesman of the MEK is the one who is charged to write against the NY Times again. This is while what is told by the New York Times about the MEK and even about its adversary Reza Pahlavi was very similar to several other articles that has been recently published on the issue.

MEK’s Anger against NYTimes

The New York Times is generally considered a liberal-leaning newspaper. Investigative journalism is a form of journalism where reporters deeply research and expose information that is often concealed or difficult to access.
The New York Times, as the MEK’s own article states has so far published three investigative reports on the world inside the MEK in 2003, 2011 and 2020.

Although the MEK propaganda denounces these reports, they are still the most referred documents about the group, especially the one that was authored by Elizabeth Rubin in June 2003 after the US invasion to Iraq. Since then, the MEK’s grudge against the New York Times began. Perhaps the biggest media blow to the MEK was dealt by the New York Times.

Rubin titled her first-hand account of visiting Camp Ashraf Iraq, “The Cult of Rajavi.” Rubin described the life at Camp Ashraf as a “fictional world of female worker bees,” asserting the group possessed absolutely no support within Iran.
Through over 2 past decades, “The Cult of Rajavi” of Elizabeth Rubin has been one of the most reliable articles for the journalists and academics because very few journalists could enter Camp Ashraf so far.

Her next article on the MEK was published in July 2011 after the group’s well-paid lobbying campaign was enhanced to remove the group from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations of the State Department.

In the article titled “An Iranian Cult and its American Friends”, Elizabeth Rubin warned about the sponsorship of the US high-profiles for the MEK as a terrorist cult.

In February 2020, the history repeated itself for the MEK, another NYTimes correspondent, Partrick Kingsley, was allowed to take a tour at Ashraf 3, the MEK’s headquarters in Albania. Although the MEK made efforts to picture the gesture of a democratic group for Kingsley, he found out that something was wrong behind the scenes that the MEK had prepared for him.

He published his investigative report under the title, “Highly Secretive Iranian Rebels Are Holed Up in Albania. They Gave Us a Tour.” Kingsley stated that depending on whom you ask, the People’s Jihadists are Iran’s government-in-waiting or a duplicitous terrorist cult that forbids sexual thoughts. Thus, besides the members inside the camp, the NYTimes reporter interviewed a number of former members of the group to know “What are they doing in Albania?”

Defectors of the MEK –who were interviewed by Rubin and Kingsley “to deeply research and expose information that is often concealed or difficult to access about the MEK”—are considered as agents of the Iranian government by Ali Safavi and so are the NYTimes journalists who added their narratives to their investigative reports.

Kingley’s article was ironically ended with the express of ignorance of Ashraf residents about the whereabouts of the MEK’s disappeared leader, Massoud Rajavi. After publishing the article, Kingsley posted further information on his X account about the secretive cult-like atmosphere at Ashraf 3 where members are not allowed to speak freely.

What does the NYTimes say about the MEK now?

The NYTimes’s recent article on Iranian oppositions, including decentralized activist groups, Reza Pahlavi and Maryam Rajavi, suggests that none of these groups have the capacity to bring regime change in Iran.
In particular, about the MEK, the NYTimes cites from a university professor: “The MEK has next-to-zero popularity in Iran. In my scholarly judgment, the MEK has more supporters in Washington, than in Iran.”
And, that’s it! This was what Ali Safavi calls “intervention” while other journalists and academics state similar opinions about Iranian dissidents. The followings were extracted out of many articles and reports on the very topic:

Jacobin:
While some members of the Iranian diaspora support exiled opposition figures such as Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi, these individuals lack meaningful support within Iran and are unlikely to serve as viable alternatives to the current regime. In the absence of a unified and credible domestic opposition, alternative strategies for facilitating change must be followed.

Newsweek:
While both Pahlavi and the MeK claim to seek establishment of a secular and democratic Iran, they often criticize one another. The MeK, spawned as a leftist rebel group in 1965, has a legacy of conducting attacks during the reign of Pahlavi’s father before the Islamic Revolution, which the group initially supported.

Elnet.uk:
The NCRI is part of this rebranding, presenting a more politically palatable front for the MEK’s goal of regime change in Iran. Despite rebranding efforts, the MEK remains unpopular within Iran due to its former support for Saddam Hussein and perceived Marxist, extremist elements.

Eurasian Times:
However, in Albania, the MEK is struggling to hold on to its own members, who have begun to defect. No strategic analyst thinks that the MEK has the capacity or support within Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Abc News:
The NCRI has notable supporters among traditional Iran hawks in the U.S., with figures including former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton and others having spoken at their events in recent years.
The NCRI has called for the establishment of a democratic and secular republic in Iran. The MEK — and by extension the NCRI — were recognized as terrorist organizations by the U.S. until 2012.

The Economic Times:
Apart from Pahlavi’s monarchists, the main opposition faction outside Iran is the People’s Mujahideen Organisation, also known as the MEK or MKO. A revolutionary faction in the 1970s, it lost a power struggle after the shah was toppled.
Many Iranians have not forgiven it for then siding with Iraq during the stalemated war of 1980-88 and rights groups have accused it of abuses at its camps and of cult-like behaviour, both of which it denies.

Jerusalem Post:
While some members of the Iranian diaspora support exiled opposition figures such as Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi, these individuals lack meaningful support within Iran and are unlikely to serve as viable alternatives to the current regime.
Ali Safavi has no defensible response to the arguments of the journalists about the unpopularity of the MEK among Iranians. He never denies that the MEK pays hefty sums to buy its American supporters. About the ban on marriage in the MEK he refers to an NYTimes article dated to 1996! The only frequent argument used by the MEK propaganda and namely Ali Safavi is that any journalist who criticizes the MEK is an agent of the Iranian government. The journalists of the NY Times are condemned more harshly because they have revealed more steadfast evidence about inside the MEK.

Mazda Parsi

The post Endless MEK’s anger towards New York Times. Why? appeared first on Nejat Society.