The Paris-based NCRI said earlier in ⁠the day that the Paris police had banned ​their rally ​at ​the last minute ‌and linked it to a call by France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot with his Iranian counterpart Abbas ‌Araqchi on ​Thursday.

“This allegation is ​false. ​The minister did ‌not mention this protest ​or ​request its cancellation,” the ministry said in a ​statement ‌sent to Reuters.

​John Irish, Reuters

The post France’s foreign ministry denies asking for ban of MEK’s rally appeared first on Nejat Society.

The dispute, which largely focuses on the threat the resort would pose to local wildlife, reveals more than meets the eye. Under the surface is an intricate set of problems related to Jared Kushner — President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a close ally and confidante of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and the presence in Albania of an Iranian exile group opposed to the current government in Tehran. All that comes on top of the news that the Albanian anti-corruption authorities have launched a probe into Kushner’s deal with Tirana, which poses a direct test also for the European Union which Albania seeks to join.

The Vjosa-Narta Delta — home to rare flamingos, pelicans, and turtle hatcheries — became Europe’s first Wild River National Park in 2023. But after Trump’s 2024 reelection, Kushner unveiled plans for a multibillion-dollar resort on the protected island. Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government granted “strategic investor status” to a Kushner-linked firm, reportedly waiving taxes and tenders and bypassing environmental reviews. When construction recently began, a “Flamingo Revolution” erupted.

What’s really important here is the possible geopolitical ramifications of this real estate project. During Trump’s first presidency, Kushner promoted the Abraham Accords – so-called normalization deals between Israel and Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Netanyahu hailed those agreements as a great diplomatic triumph. Kushner and Netanyahu reportedly remain in close contact, even as Kushner negotiates with Iran on behalf of the Trump administration. Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, was explicitly created to deepen economic ties between Israel and the Arab world.

To understand the broader context, recall Israel’s classic “periphery strategy.” For decades, Tel Aviv has cultivated ties with non-Arab states on the edges of the Middle East — from the Caucasus to the Balkans to Africa — as a way to break its diplomatic isolation. Today, that strategy is alive and well. Israel has forged close relationships with Azerbaijan (a key energy partner and Israel’s intelligence foothold on Iran’s border), Serbia (which has significantly increased its arms imports from Tel Aviv), Romania (which announced it will move its embassy to Jerusalem), and now Albania.

Albania fits perfectly into this picture. Strategically located in the Balkans, it is a Muslim-majority but secular state, a staunchly pro-American NATO member, and an eager actor looking to prove its value to Western allies. Crucially, it is also a European Union candidate country. Having another friendly nation inside the EU — or at its doorstep — would be immensely helpful to Israel as public sentiment across Europe turns increasingly critical of Israeli policies.

With EU member states debating sanctions, the potential suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, or bans on trade with the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, any sympathetic voice in the EU can be very helpful. Tirana is not yet a member, but its trajectory matters; and Prime Minister Rama has proved himself a strong ally.

Nowhere is Rama’s alignment with the Trump-Netanyahu tandem more visible than in his treatment of Iran. Albania is the country where thousands of members of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the exiled Iranian opposition group that was previously on the U.S. and EU terrorist lists, have relocated after leaving Camp Ashraf in Iraq in a deal brokered by the Obama administration in 2013.

The fact they found their new home in Tirana is mostly due to a refusal by most other nations approached by Washington to host them. The relocation was conceived as a humanitarian gesture, rather than the provision of a new operational base for the discredited group.

That arrangement was not fully respected; there is documented activity of MEK bots originating from Albania. But Rama has embraced the MEK nonetheless, using it as a cudgel against Tehran.

As the Flamingo Revolution spread, Rama publicly blamed Iran for stoking the protests. In a blistering statement addressed to the Islamic Republic, he accused Tehran of cyberterrorism, of targeting Albanian institutions, and of hostility “toward freedom itself.” He then pivoted to a full-throated defense of Albania’s decision to shelter the MEK (without naming it directly), framing its members as “Iranian men and women whom you sought to silence through intimidation, imprisonment and death.”

This is remarkable for two reasons. First, it effectively endorses the MEK as freedom fighters — exactly the language used by top officials of the first Trump administration, including former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, who reportedly have been well compensated for their pro-MEK advocacy.

Second, it deflects entirely from the allegations of domestic corruption and environmental destruction at the heart of the protests. There is no evidence the protesters waving flamingos are Iranian agents. They are Albanian citizens worried about their coastline. But by blaming Tehran and wrapping himself in the mantle of resistance to theocracy, Rama seeks to transform a local scandal into a battle in a global proxy war — one that aligns perfectly with pro-Israel interests.

This raises the question of the extent to which Albania’s foreign policy is aligned with the EU as it seeks to join the bloc. Even as the EU relations with the Islamic Republic are arguably at their lowest point since 1979, the EU does not recognize MEK as a legitimate interlocutor; nor does it seek to endorse the group in any shape or form.

To accentuate the split with Brussels, Albania joined Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and even agreed to send peacekeepers to Gaza, as per Trump’s plan, endorsed by Netanyahu.

In a sign of a deeper alignment with Netanyahu’s Israel, Rama traveled to Jerusalem, spoke before the Knesset, and was praised by Netanyahu for his “moral conscience.” There, he blamed “no one else but Hamas” for the Israeli military retaliation for Hamas’ October 7 atrocities – even though that retaliation has killed over 70,000 Palestinians in Gaza in what the International Court of Justice, a U.N. rapporteur and numerous international legal experts have characterized as plausibly constituting a genocide or genocidal acts. Such alignment accrued Rama tangible benefits, such as arms deals with Israeli firms like Elbit Systems.

While this geopolitical divergence is concerning, foreign policy is still the preserve of member states and candidates to join the EU, and some EU members have strong ties with Israel anyway. However, the allegations of corruption against Rama are one dimension where Brussels can exert real leverage.

Since Albania received EU candidate status in 2014, and formal membership negotiations started in 2022, the EU has repeatedly expressed concerns over corruption and the weakness of the rule of law in Albania. When protesters ask basic questions about who benefits from a Trump-owned resort on a nature preserve, Rama not only accuses Iran of meddling but insists there is “absolutely no chance” the development will stop.

Brussels cannot afford to look away. The EU could hold the Albanian government accountable here by demanding transparency; conditioning enlargement funds on strengthening the rule of law and the fight against corruption; and, ultimately, putting the accession negotiations on hold if those conditions are not fulfilled.

What Brussels needs is political will to protect its own tattered reputation. The flamingo-wielding protesters are not Tehran’s pawns. They are citizens fed up with the political elite’s high-handed neglect and arrogance, of which the Kushner project is only the latest expression. Brussels should start listening — and acting.

By Eldar Mamedov, Responsible Statecrafts

The post The Kushner-Israel nexus behind the Albania ‘flamingo revolution’ appeared first on Nejat Society.

In his 12-year run as prime minister, Rama has tried to drag his nation out of the depths of postcommunist depression through an economic policy of saying yes to just about any development that could bring in revenue, or what he calls “strategic investors.” Gulf and Western-backed projects have been given expedited approvals and government support. “With no industrial, financial or human capital to offer on the global market, the only thing left to sell is nature,” the Albanian author Lea Ypi wrote this week in The Guardian.

But the Kushner project is just one in a long line of unsavory and unpopular deals Rama has undertaken in a bid to curry favor with Western partners as he hammers home his “Accession before 2030” agenda — the campaign to join the European Union — which has been a key part of maintaining power.

Ivanka Trump may have been able to swim up to an island in the Mediterranean and scramble ashore barefoot, but thousands of migrants seeking refuge on European shores are now being warehoused in Albania, thanks to a five-year deal Rama signed with the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, that was roundly criticized by human rights groups but praised as “out-of-the-box” thinking by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission. In exchange for holding up to 3,000 people at a time while their asylum claims are being processed, Albania, which has lost 1.2 million of its own citizens to migration, received not much more than an assurance of Italy’s support in its EU bid.

In 2013, the United States came knocking at Rama’s door with a direct request: Take on the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The Balkan nation had successfully destroyed its own a few years earlier, and the U.S. couldn’t find another NATO country to play host to the more than 1,000 weapons, which included mustard gas and sarin gas. The deal was scuttled after it was leaked to the press and citizens complained, but the heart was willing, as it were.

It wasn’t the first time Albania was asked to take on an outsize risk as a favor for its supersized ally. Rama also expanded an arrangement, initially negotiated before his time, to host members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq — an Iranian movement that opposed both the Pahlavi monarchy and the Islamic Republic. Though it didn’t garner the same kind of public reaction the proposed chemical weapons dump did, some Albanians questioned why their country was taking on security risks for a conflict thousands of miles away. Their fears were confirmed when Iran began launching cyberattacks on critical government systems, including a crippling outage in 2022. The attacks haven’t let up; the most recent was in March.

In the past, opposition to Rama’s gambits was modest. Now thousands of people are on the streets with a single, unified slogan: “Albania is not for sale.” The growing disenchantment with the notion that the only thing the nation has to give is its land at bargain basement prices could be a tipping point for Rama and his economy of “yes.”

By Erin Clare Brown, New Lines Magazine

The post Albanians Say No to the Economy of ‘Yes’ appeared first on Nejat Society.

The Sazan Island project and redevelopment of a former communist‑era military facility span the Vjosa‑Narta lagoon and surrounding wetlands, an ecologically sensitive area known for bird migration routes and marine wildlife such as sea turtles. Environmental groups warn that bulldozers and excavators have already begun clearing sand, pine forests, and coastal habitats.[2] The government’s decision in 2024 to grant “strategic investor” status to Kushner’s affiliated firm Affinity Partners allowed accelerated approvals, bypassing standard competitive bidding and streamlined land‑use permissions.[3] Critics argue this effectively circumvented normal legal safeguards.

The proposed development, tied to Kushner’s investment firm, envisions a massive transformation of Albania’s southern coastline. Plans reportedly include 10,000 hotel rooms and villas, along with a luxury resort on Sazan Island. Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, has defended the project as a strategic investment that could turn his country into a premier Mediterranean tourism destination.

But Albania’s Special Prosecution Office Against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK) has opened an inquiry into decisions made in 2024 that altered the legal status of land in the Vjosa‑Narta region and around Sazan. Authorities are examining whether protected areas were reclassified specifically to enable the Kushner‑linked project.[4]

Public anger intensified when heavy machinery began carving access routes and fencing off land. In Tirana, thousands of protesters marched for consecutive days, carrying pink flamingo cutouts, a symbol of the threatened lagoon ecosystem.[5]  They challenge the legality of land‑status changes, the granting of “strategic investor” privileges, and the absence of completed environmental impact assessments. Demonstrations have turned confrontational with protestors breaking through police cordons and necessitating the deployment of water cannons to disperse hostile crowds. Viral videos showed security forces dragging away demonstrators at the construction site.

The continuing protests reflect not only environmental concerns but also broader frustration with perceived corruption, lack of transparency, and the influence of foreign investors over public land. A central question fuelling public outrage is whether the land, especially Sazan Island, could legally be transferred to foreign interests, or leased for private development at all. According to officials, despite the scale of the project, final environmental impact assessments have not yet been completed. This raises questions about whether construction activity already underway is lawful.

Sazan Island’s historical status as a military zone and its ecological sensitivity complicate any private development. The environmental issue is that such projects often expose tensions between economic modernisation narratives and the institutional fragility of environmental oversight. The Sazan case fits this pattern, with critics arguing that the government’s accelerated approval process reflects broader concerns about transparency and political favouritism.

It is certain that the controversy surrounding the proposed development of Sazan Island by entities linked to Jared Kushner has drawn renewed attention to Albania’s long‑standing position at the intersection of regional politics, foreign influence, and global strategic interests. Indeed, while the current dispute is rooted in environmental, legal and governance concerns, it also resonates with earlier episodes in Balkan political history, including the recently cancelled Kushner‑associated development project in Serbia, the 1935 Zionist exploratory mission to Albania and Albania’s contemporary role as host to the Mujahedin‑e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group. Taken together, these episodes illustrate how Albania’s geography and political orientation have repeatedly placed it within broader geopolitical currents.

The Albanian controversy closely parallels events in Serbia, where the government recently cancelled a Kushner‑associated real‑estate development involving the former Yugoslav military headquarters in Belgrade. Public opposition in Serbia centred on concerns about non‑transparent negotiations, the valuation of state property and the symbolic implications of transferring historically and architecturally significant property to politically connected foreign investors.[6] The main spark that ignited the public protest against the Kushner-associated real estate was the fact that the Yugoslav military headquarters was bombed twice by the United States Air Force during the NATO campaign in 1999, and that the American investor, ironically, promised to build a memorial for people who died in the bombing of the buildings.

Political analysts have argued that the Serbian government’s reversal reflected a combination of public pressure, legal uncertainty and political risk, particularly given the sensitivity of the 1999 illegal NATO campaign.[7] The Serbian case has since been invoked by Albanian civil society groups as evidence that such agreements can be halted when institutional accountability mechanisms function effectively.

The parallels between the two cases reveal a pattern of public distrust, environmental concerns and political sensitivity surrounding foreign mega‑projects tied to politically influential figures.

While the development is simply a business project driven by profit, politically influenced but not politically motivated, the Sazan Island debate has revived scholarly interest in a lesser‑known episode of interwar history: the 1935 Zionist exploratory mission to Albania. During this period, Zionist leaders, facing British restrictions in Mandatory Palestine, examined several alternative sites for potential Jewish settlement. Albania’s religious tolerance, low population density, and Mediterranean access made it an intriguing candidate for resettlement. Although the proposal never advanced beyond preliminary discussions, it foreshadowed Albania’s later role during the Holocaust, when the country became the only Nazi‑occupied territory in Europe where the Jewish population increased, due to widespread adherence to the Albanian code of besa. The Albanian code of besa, a customary ethic of honour and protection, played a significant role in motivating Muslim and Christian families alike to shelter Jewish refugees. This legacy has become a foundational narrative in modern Albania–Israel relations, frequently invoked by both governments as evidence of a historically rooted moral affinity. Contemporary Albanian and Israeli diplomatic discourse frequently mentions this historical legacy, framing it as evidence of a long‑standing empathy between the two nations.

The Prime Minister’s defence of the Sazan project on the ground that it offers long-term gains for the Albanian tourism sector is symptomatic of the influence of foreign political considerations on domestic policy decisions. For example, Albania’s acceptance of the Mujahedin‑e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition organisation exiled originally from Iran and later from Iraq, adds an instructive dimension to the country’s geopolitical positioning. The MEK’s presence has been the subject of controversy, given its contentious history and the Iranian government’s designation of the group as extremist. Hosting the MEK has placed Albania at the centre of a sensitive geopolitical triangle involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. Albania’s decision reflects its broader strategy of aligning with Western security interests, particularly in the post‑2014 period.

The convergence of these episodes, the Sazan Island dispute, the 1935 Zionist mission and the MEK’s presence, highlights a recurring theme in Albanian political history: the country’s strategic location has repeatedly made it a site of external interest, geopolitical experimentation, and contested sovereignty.

While the specific actors and circumstances differ across decades, the underlying dynamics remain consistent. Albania’s political choices, whether concerning land use, foreign investment or security partnerships, are shaped by the interplay between domestic governance structures and broader international pressures. The outcome of the Sazan Island controversy will therefore not only determine the fate of a single development project but will also signal how Albania navigates the complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.

But the main message to take away from this controversy is that sometimes corporate greed trumps even well-intended political intentions. Indeed, the Sazan project proves the veracity of Mahatma Gandhi’s statement that the “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.”

[1] Anna Skinner,’ Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Island Resort Project Under Scrutiny – Here’s Why’, Newsweek, 2 June 2026, at https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-trump-albania-resort-environmental-corruption-protests-12021501.

[2] Urooba Jamal, ‘Kushner Island? Why a planned resort has provoked protests in Albania’, Aljazeera, 5 June 2026, at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/5/why-the-kushners-plan-to-build-an-albanian-resort-has-sparked-protests.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Anna Skinner,’ Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Island Resort Project Under Scrutiny – Here’s Why’, Newsweek, 2 June 2026, at https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-trump-albania-resort-environmental-corruption-protests-12021501.

[5] Zana Cimili, ‘What to know about the growing opposition to Trump family-linked resort in Albania’, AP, 4 June 2026, at https://apnews.com/article/albania-kushner-trump-development-protest-tourism-sazan-8d7d0e216c28d23fe1b2e51cbb05b926.

[6] Petrović, M., ‘Urban Redevelopment and Political Economy in Belgrade’, Southeast European Studies Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 2 (2024): 77–101.

[7] Vučinić, D., ‘Foreign Investment and Public Resistance in Serbia.” Balkan Policy Forum Papers 2024.

Dejan Hinic is a financial and investment expert operating from Belgrade, Serbia He received his law degrees from the University of Belgrade and the University of Queensland.

Gabriël Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland where he served as the Garrick Professor of Law. He also served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University. He is the co-author of The Legal Right to Disobey Law, Sidestream Press, 2026.

By Dejan Hinic and Gabriël Moens, Canberra Daily

The post The Sazan Island Project and the Business of Greed appeared first on Nejat Society.

According to the FBI report, the American victims of the MEK included:


• U.S. Army Colonel Lewis Hawkins


• U.S. Air Force officers Paul Shaffer and Ja Turner


• Three American Rockwell International employees: William Cottrell, Robert Krongard, and Donald Smith


• American executive Paul Grimm

The document also references attacks against U.S. interests, including the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Yet today, the same organization desperately tries to present itself as “pro-American,” democratic, and aligned with Western values.

The irony is unbelievable: a group once investigated by the FBI for murdering Americans now attempts to market itself as a trusted ally of the United States and the West.

Amir Yaghmai

The post FBI Document Confirms: MEK Killed Americans 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.

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.

JOQ asserts that after the publication of the earlier report, the case did not remain isolated. The editorial staff received dozens of other complaints from various citizens, who report similar situations and express uncertainty about what is happening in different areas.

Only after these reactions and repeated calls to institutions, including the Director of the Police, Skënder Hita, has an official reaction come from the State Police.

Albanians concerned over MEK approaching their children

In the press release, the police have clarified that these are women who belong to a group known as the Iranian Mujahedeen [Mujahedin-e Khalq/ MEK], who are located in the Manëz area, and that, according to the authorities, they do not pose a danger or bad intentions towards the children.

However, despite this “reassuring” clarification, it seems that some citizens remain skeptical. Complaints and reports continue to arrive, showing that concerns have not been completely eliminated and that trust in official statements remains fragile. The situation once again raises the need for greater transparency and clear communication from institutions, in order to avoid misunderstandings and restore a sense of security among citizens.

JOQ Albania, Editorial Staff

The post JOQ Albania: Dozens of Complaints against the MEK from Citizens 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 war on Iran has given an opposition group that has long struggled for relevance in exile a chance to grab the mantle of history and present itself as a ready-made alternative to the Islamic Republic.

As Israel and the US began to strike Iran on 28 February, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) swung into action.

Maryam Rajavi, the group’s 72-year-old leader, announced the formation of what she described as a provisional government tasked with overseeing the fall of the Iranian regime and its replacement with a democratic republic with her at the helm.

For more than a decade, 3,000 members of the MEK have lived in a small village outside Albania’s capital Tirana, turning the Balkan country into an unlikely outpost of a distant conflict.

The group, founded as an Islamist-Marxist student militia in the 1960s, relocated to the village of Manze in 2013 when Albania agreed, at Washington’s request, to accept fighters previously based in Iraq.

Now, there is an opportunity that has long eluded the MEK, one that could lead it out of Albania and back into some kind of relevance.
The problem, analysts say, is that the group is far further away from power than it was during the 1979 revolution it played a significant role in.

“The MEK is not a serious alternative to the Islamic Republic. It is a thuggish and corrupt cult that is unpopular inside Iran,” said Thomas Juneau, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Ottawa.

“As long as the Islamic Republic was firmly in power, it was mostly irrelevant for former US (and other western) politicians to support the MEK by attending its events,” he told Middle East Eye.

The US designated the MEK a terrorist organisation in 1997 before removing it from the list in 2012.

Despite the controversy surrounding the group, which was cracked down on by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the revolution and went on to fight for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the MEK gained international attention in 2002 when it revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed Iranian uranium-enrichment programme.

A role in the current conflict?

Iran has experienced repeated waves of protests in recent decades. Yet the opposition has remained fragmented, both inside and outside the country, with numerous ideological and political factions competing for influence.

The MEK, which began its life as a vehemently anti-American, anti-imperialist group, now stands out in part because of its willingness to cooperate with the US and Israel.

This alignment, analysts say, helps explain why it continues to attract attention despite its limited domestic popularity.
“This is not happening because people think the MEK will bring democracy or that they have any future,” said Sajjad Safaei, an expert on Iran and the Middle East.

“In some ways, because the MEK has no future, they are perfect for serving the interests of for instance the United States or Israel,” he told MEE.

The organisation remains highly structured and maintains networks among Persian-speaking activists.
Its Albanian compound reportedly houses media rooms and communication centers used to monitor Iranian developments and distribute content online.

“There is this running joke amongst Farsi speakers,” Safaei said. “That whenever you want to dismiss a Twitter or social media account, you always say, just remember that you’re talking to an MEK account in Tirana.”

Beyond propaganda, analysts believe the group may play a role in shaping narratives supportive of western policy toward Iran.
Such activity can create what Safaei describes as a permissive climate that reinforces arguments for military action. But its potential utility may extend further.

“So sabotage, espionage, inciting violence, sabotage of nuclear installations, assassinations, they’re probably very much involved there, I could imagine,” he said.

The MEK has also built a lobbying network in Washington.

Last year, supporters in Congress passed a resolution backing Rajavi’s “10-point plan” for Iran, which calls for the country to become a “democratic, secular and non-nuclear state”.

For Juneau, though, there is a critical distinction to make. While the group may be useful to outside powers, he argues, that does not mean it has a realistic political future inside Iran.

“It is crucial to distinguish that role from the delusion that it could play a constructive political role in a post-Islamic Republic Iran,” he said.

Gambit for power

For years the MEK has cultivated support among western politicians who see it as a useful instrument against Tehran.
Among those who have appeared at the group’s events are former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, former US Vice President Mike Pence, former senator Joe Lieberman, former national security adviser John Bolton, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Financial disclosures in the US show that some figures were paid substantial speaking fees. Bolton received $40,000 for a speech at a 2017 rally in Paris, while Pence was paid $190,000 for a speech delivered in Albania in 2022.
“Now that the fall of the Islamic Republic is conceivable, it becomes essential for western governments to take the issue of a post-Islamic Republic Iran seriously,” said Juneau.

The renewed speculation about so-called “regime change” has also intensified rivalries among exiled Iranian opposition figures, and the knives are out.

Giuliani, a close ally of the MEK, attacked Reza Pahlavi on X on 1 March.

“Reza Pahlavi is the heir to a regime of corruption and brutality imposed by outsiders on the Iranian people,” Giuliani wrote, adding that the son of the shah had lived “a life of a self-proclaimed ‘prince’ supported by the money stolen from the people”.

Mike Pompeo, a former US secretary of state, also weighed in, writing that “Iran’s democratic opposition is ready to step up and lead”, while quoting Rajavi.

Even so, Washington has not officially endorsed the group.

“The past shows ample precedents of US support for groups with little or no legitimacy in countries it invades can have negative consequences,” Juneau said.

Elis Gjevori, Middle East Eye

PS by Nejat Society: This article was published on March 10, 2026 when certain journalists and analyst had the  illusion of the alleged fall of the Iranian government. The war is now almost over and the Islamic Republic is still in power.

The post Iran’s MEK plots a US-backed path to power from exile in Albania appeared first on Nejat Society.