Jonathan Feldstein is an American who immigrated to Israel in 2004.  He has a three-decade career in fundraising and marketing for Israeli foundations. He is also an author who is considered a “respected” bridge between Jews and Christians, in Israel.

His piece is actually a response to a MEK agent who claimed that the MEK has changed and is no longer repeating its terrorist past. In response, Feldstein tries to acknowledge, while reviewing the MEK’s background, that the MEK has never changed to better; has no political or social legitimacy for Iranians and that this MEK “agent” is actually selling himself to clear the bloody record of his employers.

The Zionist author, Feldstein begins the article with a question about the MEK agent and gives a comprehensive answer:

Who is the “agent” selling out for, why, and why does it matter?

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) is one of the most prominent and controversial Iranian opposition groups. Founded in 1965, it evolved from a student-led Marxist revolutionary movement to an exiled organization advocating for regime change in Iran. Its history is of violent confrontations, forced exile, and robust international public relations and lobbying. It’s front organization, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) seeks to pasteurize its terrorist origins and position it as a legitimate player in the broader Iranian landscape.

MEK and NCRI are one and the same, a hand-in-glove relationship. Rather than a legitimate opposition, they represent a disgruntled and isolated – and very well-funded – terrorist group. They are nothing more than wolves in different wolves’ clothes. Sadly, there are many Western leaders who are in their pockets, literally, and others like their “agent” who are on the payroll.

When one speaks of the red-green alliance, the MEK/NCRI is the embodiment of that. They blend radical Islam with Marxist revolutionary ideology. MEK always emphasized armed struggle against oppression to achieve its goals. Massoud Rajavi joined in the late 1960s and rose to its leadership after the Shah’s regime executed the founders and other leaders.

In the 1979 Islamic Revolution, MEK supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It gained popularity for its anti-monarchy stance and organizational strength. But they had a fallout with “Supreme Leader” Khomeini and, after being violently put down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), they turned to terror inside Iran, leading to a brutal crackdown against its members and supporters. Its leaders fled Iran to protect themselves.

Rajavi fled to Paris, establishing NCRI as part of its exiled underground network. It relocated to Iraq in 1986, allying with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. This, and participating in the killing of Iranians in order to carry out their terrorist goals, alienated many Iranians and fueled accusations of collaboration with arch-enemy Saddam. Still today, MEK is wildly unpopular and viewed with hatred, as treasonous, by many Iranians.

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, MEK was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., U.K., E.U., and Canada. But after purportedly renouncing violence in the early 2000s, with no confirmed terrorist acts for which they took credit for over a decade, the West delisted it as a terror group. These decisions were driven largely by geopolitical considerations and challenges in relocating MEK members from Iraq to Albania. After all, nobody wants a terrorist group in their backyard, so a thick coat of whitewash, a slick PR campaign, and international declarations of “reform” made them suddenly palatable. Good neighbors.

But more than actually renouncing terror, the reversal was the product of well-funded intense lobbying, and a media smoke and mirrors scheme such as that which their “agent” is involved. It bears repeating that there are no known instances of Islamic terrorist groups truly renouncing their ideology or use of terror to achieve their goals. Pigs flying and hell freezing over are appropriate metaphors.

Today, MEK/NCRI supporters worship Maryam Rajavi, Massoud’s wife. He has been missing for two decades and presumed dead. They view her words as gospel, her ten-point plan for Iran as coming from Mt. Sinai. On the surface, they claim to support a plan for Iran rooted in secular democracy, gender equality, and without nukes. But follow Iranians in Iran and in the diaspora, and you’ll more often than not find them deriding and delegitimizing MEK/NCRI and Rajavi.

Further accusations of MEK/NCRI being cultlike are echoed in the absolute uniformity of “thought” that they present, minimally, as if they are reading from the same script, to, in fact, being brainwashed.

After a personal encounter that became a heated on-air debate with one of their speakers placed by the “agent,” I confronted their “agent” when I heard about him promoting them. “I heard you’re promoting NCRI. Is that correct?” Usually, a publicist helps clients formulate the talking points. In this case, the “agent” has been indoctrinated by the client.

After he admitted it, he pedaled that they are “former” terrorists, as if singing a John Lennon anti-war song, insisting “people change.”

I had a prior professional connection with the “agent” and challenged him, “I remember exactly where I was when you called me to ask about them. Your take on who they are and what they represent is mistaken. They are misleading you and the world. You’re being used. Shame that you are placing booking terrorists over integrity.” […]

The “agent” doubled down, “Former terrorist entity. There’s a difference. People change. They (MEK/NCRI) are better than imposing a King on them for the new regime. Ninety-four million mostly-Persian citizens deserve better than a King (aka Shah). Don’t you think?”

No, sir, don’t YOU think? Clearly not. Not as long as the Marxist-Islamist checks are being cashed.

It’s ironic to defend MEK/NCRI as democratic when the Rajavi dynasty has been in control since the 1980s. Her colorful hijab, as compared to the Islamic Republic’s preferred black, suggests openness, but it’s just a ruse to make you think they want democracy, secular reforms, and gender equality

The “agent” is pushing MEK/NCRI and Maryam Rajavi as an addicted drug dealer would do to fund his own addiction. Ultimately, the future of Iran needs to be decided by Iranians. But don’t let people like their “agent” and others pull the hijab over your eyes. MEK/NCRI are not to be trusted and, yes, the Iranian people deserve better.

Taken from Jonathan Feldstein’s article in Townhall

The post American Zionist: The MEK is a Fake Iranian Opposition appeared first on Nejat Society.

The high-ranking official from the American Enterprise Institute, in an Op-Ed on Middle East Forum warned for the umpteenth time about the MEK’s psychological operations among European and American politicians. He recalled that in the early years of the Islamic Republic’s government, the MEK opposed Ayatollah Khomeini not because they had a problem with his ideology, but because they wanted a share in power and did not achieve it.

Explaining the current MEK operation in the West, Rubin writes:

“In the United States and Europe, the MEK engages in a psychological operation to suggest they are pro-Western or committed to democracy. That is nonsense. They operate as a cult, isolate their members, and foster anti-Americanism. They have become North Korea, only with more food and slicker public relations. Many of the MEK’s claims of infiltrating Iran or running operations inside the country are demonstrably untrue. Former officials who support them do so not because of ideological fealty, but rather because of lucrative honoraria.”

This American historian writes of Maryam Rajavi’s current frustration, and that during and after the protests, the Iranian people ignored or cursed the MEK, and despite the organization’s grandiose statements and claims of public support, the MEK is known among Iranians as nothing more than a group of frauds.

He refers to Maryam Rajavi’s announcement of a “provisional government” and considers it “little more than play-acting.” According to him, no American official—even those to whom the MEK and its proxy organizations have given hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial assistance—takes the potential MEK government seriously.

This political commentator, opposed to the Iranian government, criticizes Rajavi for the strict hijab he imposes on the group’s women and speaks of Rajavi’s hostility to Pahlavi. According to Rubin, “the most important thing for Rajavi is power,” and in order to achieve power in Iran, he is likely to launch “potential assassination campaigns”. This organization has already killed a large number of Iranian citizens and officials.

The author of the article calls on Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, to immediately re-designate the MEK as a terrorist organization on the list of foreign terrorist groups, so that the group’s infrastructure and members can gather on US soil and then pressure European countries to do the same with Rajavi and his inner circle.

Mazda Parsi

The post Will the Mujahedin-e Khalq Try to Kill Pahlavi? 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.

Rubin is an American historian, foreign policy analyst, government adviser, and military lecturer who holds the position of a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has long been a critic of the Iranian government as well as the MEK.

In his recent article published by the Middle East Forum, supporting the protests in Iran, Rubin warns about the MEK’s violent background. “Mujahedin bombs killed hundreds of Iranians, as the cult-like group cared little about collateral damage” he writes. “As a result, many Iranians consider them terrorists.”

The American historian correctly notifies that “more damning in Iranian eyes was the Mujahedin-e Khalq’s defection to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq at the height of the Iran-Iraq War.”

About the MEK’s current status as a “chameleon cult”, he writes: In the decades since, the Mujahedin has grown only more cult-like even as it has become a political chameleon, shifting 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. “Victory or martyrdom, fighting with America rises from our voice. … Compromise is a shame. Shout from your heart: destroy America!” goes one Mujahedin-e Khalq anthem.

Although this anti-Islam foreign policy analyst seeks the overthrow of Islamic Republic government, he truthfully asks Marco Rubio to designate the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization because he thinks that this unpopular group might deviate the aspirations of Iranians.

He assumes Rubio as the right person to do so: “Rubio, unlike some predecessors, has never accepted Mujahedin-e Khalq bribes under the guise of donations or honoraria; he is not beholden to a group Iranians despise.”

The post Michael Rubin: Rubio Should Re-Designate the Mujahedin-e Khalq appeared first on Nejat Society.

None of this changes a basic reality inside Iran. Many Iranians have taken to the streets because daily life has become punishing. Prices have surged, the currency has lost value and families have watched wages fall behind the cost of food, housing and medicine. The Trump administration’s sanctions have played a central role in tightening that vice, sharply restricting Iran’s ability to trade and access global markets, and adding momentum to inflation and financial instability.

Yet public discussion often stops there, as if economic pain tells the whole story. It does not. A second layer matters for anyone trying to understand what is happening, and for anyone tempted to treat escalation as “support for the Iranian people”: the question of foreign encouragement and involvement.

Mossad’s messaging and Israel’s public claims

Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, has not confined itself to quiet signals. Mossad used social media to urge Iranians to mobilise, writing: “Go out together into the streets. The time has come… We are with you in the field.”

Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu also spoke in unusually direct terms, referring to an operation he called “Rising Lion” and saying that Israeli forces had operated on Iranian soil and had people active there “right now”.

Former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo reinforced that message with a tweet: “Happy New Year to Iranians and Mossad agents beside them.” Last year, Mossad director David Barnea said Israel would continue its activities in Iran, declaring: “We will continue to be there, as we have been.”

Taken together, those statements do not prove the scale of any operation. They do something else: they normalise the idea of foreign intelligence activity as a legitimate companion to civil unrest. That is a dangerous precedent, especially in a region where covert action has repeatedly escalated into open conflict and where civilians pay the price first.

The MEK’s self-declared role

Another actor frequently cited in discussion of the protests is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an exiled opposition organisation with a long and divisive history. The group presents itself as an organiser of protest activity and has issued sweeping claims about casualties and arrests.

The MEK says it has identified 1,449 people killed as of 30 January, 2026 and describes the unrest as a nationwide uprising. It also claims Iranian authorities have detained students accused of links to the organisation. These are serious allegations, but they originate in the group’s own statements and should be treated with caution until independently verified.

The organisation’s history helps explain why its presence triggers such sharp reactions. Founded in 1965, the MEK carried out armed attacks against the Shah’s government and US targets in the 1970s, and it initially supported the 1978–1979 revolution. It later turned against the new Iranian state and went into exile. Its decision to align with Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War remains, for many Iranians, a line that no rebranding can easily erase.

The US State Department designated the MEK a terrorist organisation in 1997, a label that remained until 2012, when the United States removed it during Barack Obama’s presidency.

The organisation’s history helps explain why its presence triggers such sharp reactions. Founded in 1965, the MEK carried out armed attacks against the Shah’s government and US targets in the 1970s, and it initially supported the 1978–1979 revolution. It later turned against the new Iranian state and went into exile. Its decision to align with Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War remains, for many Iranians, a line that no rebranding can easily erase.

The US State Department designated the MEK a terrorist organisation in 1997, a label that remained until 2012, when the United States removed it during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Trump’s call to escalate

Foreign encouragement has not come only from Israel or exiled groups. On 13 January, 2026, Trump urged protesters to intensify their actions and seize state institutions, writing: “KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

That language matters. It does not read like concern for rights or support for democratic participation. It reads like an invitation to confrontation, paired with the suggestion of outside backing. In a country shaped by long memories of foreign interference, that kind of messaging can deepen polarisation, raise the risk of violence and harden the very security posture it claims to oppose.

What would “regime change” even mean?

Even if one sets aside legality and morality, the strategy collapses under its own questions. If Iran’s leadership fell, who would govern a country of roughly 90 million people? Some proponents point to the Shah’s son, but his support inside Iran is widely contested and he has lived abroad for decades, including in Maryland.

Then comes the issue of force. What would occupation and administration require in manpower, logistics and political cover, particularly in a society where many already distrust US intentions? A project of that scale would not resemble a “targeted strike”. It would look more like a prolonged crisis, with predictable spillover and unpredictable end points.
There is also a religious dimension that outside actors routinely underestimate. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, carries religious authority for many Shia Muslims. A direct assault on Iran risks being read by parts of the region as an assault on a community’s dignity and security, not simply a dispute between states.

Regional actors would also respond through their own interests. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and powerful Shia political forces in Iraq have long understood that an attack on Iran shifts the balance of power across the region. If they believe Iran’s fall makes them next, they will not disarm out of goodwill. They will prepare for survival.
Finally, escalation dynamics rarely stop where planners imagine. If the United States attacked and Iran inflicted serious damage in return, would Washington or Israel accept that outcome, or would they climb further up the ladder in pursuit of “victory”? In a world where nuclear threats have returned to political conversation with disturbing ease, that is not a remote concern.

A historical warning, and a hard question

Iran does not approach this moment without history. In 1951, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, became Time magazine’s Man of the Year. Two years later, a CIA-backed coup removed him. Decades on, the legacy still shapes how many Iranians read foreign pressure: less as humanitarian concern, more as a recurring pattern of control.

That history sharpens a final, uncomfortable question. If an Iranian citizen believed that only a credible deterrent could prevent an existential attack, would they support pursuing nuclear weapons? If not, what real alternative would allow Iran to escape sanctions, threats and covert action while protecting its sovereignty?

These are not abstract debates. They sit at the center of today’s crisis, and any honest discussion of Iran’s protests has to hold them alongside the country’s genuine internal grievances.

Jenny Williams, Middle East Monitor

The post The MEK’s self-declared role in Iran protests appeared first on Nejat Society.

On Saturday, February 7, at the MEK’s so-called Free Iran rally held to mark the anniversary of the victory of the 1979 revolution, in Iran, Iman Sefati, an Iranian-German journalist who works for the German news outlet, Bild, was attacked and verbally abused by Maryam Rajavi’s bodyguards because of a single question he asked Maryam Rajavi.

A short question from the journalist turned into a crisis for Maryam Rajavi’s bodyguards. Iman Sefati was met with silence by the side of Maryam Rajavi for asking a question that criticized the background of the MEK, and her answer was replaced by an onslaught from her bodyguards. The question was: “Ms. Maryam Rajavi! What is your opinion about Saddam Hussein?”. The journalist referred to the group’s collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

The attack by Maryam Rajavi’s elderly bodyguards began with verbal abuse and labeling the journalist as Iranian spy. They tried to forcibly take the cell phones of Iman Sefati and his colleague, but they were unsuccessful due to the intervention of the Berlin police.

Along with publishing a video of the incident on his account, Sefati wrote to Maryam Rajavi and the speakers of the event on the X social network:

As a journalist, I just wanted to ask you some questions. A basic right in a democracy. Reaction: Kicks in the groin, blows to the torso, pushing and choking. Is this the group’s understanding of democracy, freedom of expression and diversity of opinions?

The post Maryam Rajavi’s Bodyguards Attack BILD Journalist in Berlin Rally appeared first on Nejat Society.

In just one month, Iran was thrust into the global spotlight. Protests erupted. Chaos spread. Ordinary citizens stood against violence, restoring order in the face of terror.

But behind the unrest lay a hidden war; coordinated attacks, sabotage, and the deliberate targeting of lives, cities, and culture. This is the story of a nation tested, of resilience… forged in fire!

Mostafa Beheshti, former member of the MEK was interviewed by Press TV in this investigated report on the protests.
He explains how the group under the leadership of the US and Israel works against Iranian interests.

“At the top of the MEK, Israel and the US are giving the orders,” he told Press TV. “They issue the instructions and the terrorist group is just the executer.”

According to Beheshti, one or two months before these events the MEK began their work in the telegram groups using fake accounts. Then, they entered their operatives through western borders of Iran, those who are armed to commit acts of destruction and sabotage against civilians and security forces.

Beheshti said that paying the vandals is a longstanding tradition in the MEK. “They had also instructed their members that all activities should be done in person and that no messages should be sent on online platforms,” he explains how the MEK hires mercenaries. “They operated in three-person cells. I this set-up one person from outside the country contacted a three-member team.”

About the fee of violence, he adds, “We were paying around 200 to 300 million for arson and clashes with security forces using crypto currency and exchanging offices. In some cases, we had a separate method. The payment was hidden in trash bins in parks.”

Former member of the MEK finds a common aspect in recent incidents in Iran and the MEK’s acts of terror in the early years of the Islamic Republic. “If I want to put it briefly these events were very similar to what happened in Iran in the 1980s,” he states. “At that time, they needed to manufacture death and portrait themselves as victims in order to convince the public”
As a defector who spent 20 years inside the MEK, he has no doubt that the scale of killings carried out by the MEK has not even committed by Daesh. “These are done to demonstrate their loyalty and mercenary role on behalf of Israel,” he says.

The post Press TV to interview former MEK member on riots in Iran appeared first on Nejat Society.

Vigilance and public synergy

The ministry underscored that public cooperation has been instrumental. In Tehran alone, over 300 key “field leaders” were identified and detained following reports from citizens via the 113 hotline. Similar successes were reported nationwide:
– Kerman Province: A six-member armed cell linked to the “Iran International” media outlet was captured in Rafsanjan and Sirjan. The group, which included four repeat offenders, was involved in attacking a seminary and firing on civilians.
– Khuzestan: Six ringleaders were arrested for the arson and desecration of the Holy Shrine of Sabze-Qaba in Dezful.
– Malard: The perpetrator behind the martyrdom of Officer Mohammad Javad Bakhshian was apprehended and confessed to the stabbing.

German-funded MEK sabotage

In another statement, the ministry detailed the arrest of two operatives in Tehran linked to the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) organization.

According to the ministry, these individuals were being remotely managed by a handler based in Germany, and the handler utilized cryptocurrency transfers to fund the purchase of weapons and safe houses.
Confiscated documents and confessions revealed that their mission included “setting fire to mosques and carrying out beheadings” to incite fear.
Authorities seized two Kalashnikov rifles, ammunition, and specialized communication equipment.
This follows the MEK’s own admission that it has played an active field role in the recent disturbances and terror attacks, acknowledging that 38 of its “insurgents” were eliminated in failed operations.

Thwarting the armed siege on Tehranpars

The Ministry of Intelligence also said it neutralized a terrorist team that had infiltrated Iran through western borders with the intent to commit crimes in the capital.
The cell was responsible for a sophisticated armed assault on Police Station 126 in Tehranpars on the evening of January 8.

According to the ministry, the terrorists fired over 850 rounds using military-grade weapons in an attempt to seize the station and loot its armory.

The attack resulted in the martyrdom of several police personnel, Basij members (volunteer security forces as part of the IRGC), and bystanders.

During the final operation to apprehend them, the terrorists opened fire on security forces; in the ensuing exchange, one gunman was killed, and four others were captured.

The ministry added that two intelligence officers from Tehran province were wounded but, demonstrating legendary dedication, “refused to leave the mission or rest until their recovery,” remaining in the field despite their injuries.

Iranian officials maintain that these events, which cumulatively have led to the death of a few thousand, especially from January 8 to January 10, are part of a broader “hybrid war” involving the U.S. and Israel.

Tehran Times

The post Two MEK terror operatives arrested in Tehran 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.