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.

In this court, the plaintiffs’ lawyer said: The scale of the crimes committed by members of the organization cannot be described in a few documents, whether it is the young people who fell into the trap of the MEK or the parents who lost their children as a result of the MEK’s terror acts.

Maddah continued, “One of the crimes they committed was Operation Chelcheragh, a military operation carried out by members of the MEK on June 18, 1988.”

He said, “The goal of this operation was to capture the border city of Mehran, 100 kilometers from Ilam. After capturing the city of Mehran, members of the group looted the city, killed more than 8,000 Iranians, and took 1,500 people as hostage.
The lawyer said that the MEK calls its force as National Liberation Army. “Which liberation army in the world would storm a hospital and assassinate people from two-year-old children to young people, men and women?” he added. “A liberation army is supported by the people based on international law, while the MEK assassinated ordinary people.”

According to Maddah, intimidating, killing civilians, having illegitimate goals, lack of public support, and violence and resorting to force are among the most important definitions of terrorism in international law.

He said, “Liberation organizations in international law have special characteristics that distinguish them from terrorist groups. These organizations usually move towards their goals by observing the rules of war and international law and use legitimate means to achieve their goals, not by war crimes such as shooting and executing innocent people.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer added, “The liberation armies are internationally recognized and supported by international institutions. In contrast, the MEK was recognized as a terrorist group in many countries, including the United States and Europe.”

Maddah notified that the MEK’s army stole a large amount of military equipment and tools that were to be used against the Iraqi Baath regime, in Operation Chelcheragh. The group even mentioned this issue in its newspaper, Mujahed.

“Since this action was a widespread act against national security and territorial integrity, the crime can be an example of corruption on earth,” he suggested. “Also, since they used weapons against people and created fear and insecurity, this crime can also be an example of war.”

The lawyer, on behalf of his clients asked the judge to take action to attribute the crimes of corruption on earth and war to all the leaders of the MEK who are among the defendants in the case and to issue sentences for them commensurate with these crimes.

A number of former members of the MEK including Ali Ekrami and Iraj Salehi also attended the 40th court in order to testify about what they witnessed in Chelcheragh.

Families of victims of Operation Chelcheragh took the stand and asked the court to bring MEK leaders to justice. The son of Asad Soltani, the sister of Salem Alipour and the brother of Mohammadi demanded revenge for the blood of their beloved ones who were killed on June 18, 1988 in the Mehran-Dehloran region.

At the end of the hearing, the judge announced that the next hearing would be held on October 21.

The post Report on the 40th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

At the beginning of the hearing, the judge asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer to take the stand and make his statement. Massoud Maddah said: The endless killing of children, men, women, young and old, and civilians is just a small part of the brutal crimes committed by mercenaries who were deceived by the leaders of this terrorist group. If we examine the history of the last few hundred years of Iran, we have never had mercenaries fighting for a foreign enemy and against the Iranian people, committing all kinds of brutal crimes and taking pride in these crimes, and worse, calling these crimes liberation and freedom-seeking.

Maddah reminded: The MKO had three types of cooperation with the Iraqi Baath regime during the 8-year imposed war on Iran. Military cooperation, espionage and intelligence cooperation, and supervision in the killing of the Iranian people. One of the separated members of this group, who is also mentioned on page 249 of the indictment, states that in explaining the world, Massoud Rajavi named Saddam and the sheikhdoms of the region as dictators and reactionaries of the region and called them aggressors, but when he issued a joint statement with Tariq Aziz [Saddam Hussein’s Minister], the analysis and theory changed. This was an example of Massoud Rajavi’s contradictory behavior.

The lawyer stated that numerous documents indicate that Massoud Rajavi had effective cooperation with the Iraqi Baath regime; while he considered this regime as reactionary and dictatorial. “This shows that this person’s entire behavior is deception, deceit, and contradiction,” he added.

Maddah told the court: The MEK claim to be liberating while they have killed, imprisoned, tortured, bombed, and even murdered two-year-old and one-year-old and eight-month-old children in Iran. Are they liberators or a terrorist group? In international law, the characteristics of a liberation movement or army include the independence of the country, the support of the people, and targeting legitimate targets. Not entering a house, martyring a two-year-old child, and then killing his parents. Liberation movements and armies observe international law and the rules of war.

He asked the court to refer the case to an international law expert, so that the issue can be clarified clearly.

Fathollah Eskandari former member of the MEK took the stand as an informed person. In Rajavi’s prison and organization, torture, inhumane killings, and severe mental and physical pressure were applied,” he told the court. “Many members were subjected to severe pressure.”

Eskandari said: “I worked in the repair shop of the MEK’s camp. Whenever we begged them to leave the group, it was as if they were giving us a choice between death and joining them: either get killed or leave!”

Samad Eskandari, another defector of the MEK who appeared at the stand told the court: On various occasions and in collective meetings, we heard Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the MEK, confess many times that he had received all the war equipment, tanks, cannons and other military equipment from the Iraqi army. In numerous joint meetings with Saddam Hussein, Rajavi convinced him to donate military equipment and financial aids.
“The MEK acted as the fifth column of the Iraqi army in operations against the Iranian forces and were in fact at his disposal like a special unit of Saddam’s army,” stated Samad Eskandari.

Hadi Shabani was also a defector of the Cult of Rajavi who spoke at the court. He recounted the MEK operation called Chelcheragh that was logistically sponsored by Iraqi army. “Because Iranian scouts were aware of us, we worked at night and stayed in the trenches that belonged to the Iraqi forces during the day,” he recalled. “The Iraqi army had given us these trenches.”

He added: By the night of the operation, we had two Russian 130 cannons and two 122 cannons, two of which were in the hands of the organization’s women and the other two were in the hands of our own forces. After Rajavi announced the operation, we were unable to fire much, because the cannons were both old and did not function well, and they went out of range very quickly. The important point is that in this operation, as the organization itself advertises and can be seen in their films, there was a lot of fire, while we ourselves knew that we did not have Katyushas or anything else. We only had four cannons. Of course, we later said that we didn’t have all these cannons and Katyushas because we hadn’t received the necessary training yet. Then they announced that these forces were the Iraqi army who had come to support us to carry out the operation, which they announced near morning had entered Mehran territory.

Then, Doost Mohammad Farhi, a defected member of the MEK, appeared on the stand as a witness and swore to tell the truth in court. He explained about Chelcheragh operation: I was also an infantryman in Operation Chelcheragh. During this operation, we were in the Mehran region for 2 days. The organization brought tanks to the Iranian border and left them at the border, and captured a number of personnel carriers and tanks inside Iran. All of these operations were with the help of Baathist forces. Baathist forces provided support from a distance. We also handed over the captured tanks to Baathist forces.

The next session of the court will be held on October 7th, 2025.

The post Report on the 39th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

Maddah, the attorney of the plaintiffs once more presented the cases of victims of the Israeli attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists. He explained that victims of the attacks are considered as victims of a collaboration between the MEK and the invading enemy and then, this is a crime according to the laws.

Nezhat Shaban Azad is the wife of Fereidoon Abbasi Davani, the nuclear scientist who was killed in June 13th attacks. She took the stand at the court and explained how her husband was killed by the explosions at that night.

According to his wife’s testimonies, Fereidoon Abbasi was thrown out in the street from the 13th floor of their residential building. A neighbor, a retired man, was also killed.

Shaban Azad told the court that her husband had survived a first Israel-MEK led attack in 2010. He noticed the magnetic bomb that a motorcycle rider placed on their car.

She said: “The first time the Zionist regime attempted to assassinate my wife (15 years ago), we filed a complaint against the Zionist regime, the MEK, and the US government because Israel had officially claimed responsibility for the assassination. At that time, our lives were severely affected, and my wife and I were forced to separate our workplaces for greater security. But this time, we were attacked in our own home. Violation of the privacy of individuals’ homes is absolutely unacceptable, and I am filing a complaint against it.”

This complaint is still ongoing and Abbasi family have not been informed of the outcome yet.
Anne Singleton, a British citizen who was a member of the MEK for 8 years, took the stand as a witness.

“I have known the MEK organization for 47 years,” she addressed the court. “I was one of its supporters for twenty years and I have been its enemy for twenty years, and I have written books about the MEK.”

“Saddam’s Private Army” and “The Life of Camp Ashraf” are two of her books on the MEK.
“I left the MEK because I realized that they were people who influenced people’s minds,” she said. “After leaving them, it took me a while to get better, and after I felt better, I created a website called Iran Interlink.”

Base on Singleton’s testimonies writing in both English and Persian on her website, her intention was to bring the social and political situation of the MEK and their destructive ideas into limelight.

About the recruitment process the MEK agents use to recruit her, Singlton said: “Their recruitment and brainwashing process started in such a way that they sent messages and constantly asked me to do tasks so that I didn’t have time to think and figure out where I was going and what I was doing. Until in 1992 they asked me to come to Iraq for military training.”

She added: “For 10 years I had a different life. In one aspect I was a British person with a job, family and friends and in another aspect I was addicted to the MEK, I did whatever they wanted and I couldn’t separate myself from them and after 10 years in 1989 I had a personal crisis and in this personal crisis I had to choose one and I chose the MEK, the MEK separated me from my family and I had no contact with my family anymore.”

Singlton explained why the MEK recruits foreign nationals: “I was in the MEK’s team house in London and also in their team house in Sweden. They took me to Iraq for three months. They said that was for military training, but they didn’t use me as a trained person. They had people more trained than me for their operations. Instead, they used me as a passport. I say passport because Saddam paid them money for each passport.”

Ann Singleton (Ann Khodabandeh) married another MEK defector, Massoud Khodabandeh in Londen. Massoud Khodabandeh has previously attended the trail of the MEK and its leaders.
The next court session will be held on September 4th, 2025.

The post Report on the 35th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Dehghani explained about the testimonies made by arrested agents of the MEK who committed terrorist attacks in the early years of the 1980s. According to the testimonies of certain MEK agents, named Sohrab Sepehri, Hossein Sheikholhokama, Abbas Sahraiee and abdolkarim Moazez, the leaders of the group had ordered them to kill any individual who seemed to be a sympathizer of the Islamic Republic.

They testified that the murders were usually accomplished based on the beard of the victim or the portrait of ayatollah Khomeini on the wall of his shop. This way, the MEK, as the first defendant of the court, has killed a large number of civilians in Iran.

Maddah, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, asked some of family members of the victims of a terrorist attack, called Qadikalah incident, and a survivor of the attack to take the stand and deliver their testimonies.

Ali Haghpanah, the brother of Mohammad Ali Haghpanah asked the court to bring the MEK to justice for the assassination of his brother. Qiaseddin Mozaffari, the son of Hossein Mozaffari also lost his father in Qadikalah terrorist attack. The MEK agents killed the two men in the road from Qaemshahr to Qadikalah.

Einollah Delpisheh is also a survivor of Qadikalah incident who took the stand to testify about the terrorist attack. He and Mozaffari were teachers; they had no political position in the government.

Abbas Ali Kamalpour Bandari was also a victim of the MEK terror teams. He was only 17 when he was killed by the MEK terrorist. His brother, HosseinAli attended the court to ask for punishment of the group and its leaders.

The wife and children of Yunes Taheri also demanded blood money and severe punishment from the court for the first accused of the court, the legal entity of the MEK. Taheri’s wife told the court that the body of her husband was never found. Yunes Taheri was a member of Iranian revolutionary guard.

Another action of the MEK was the hijacking of a Phantom F-14 fighter jet, which was carried out by agents of the group. This case was reviewed in the 35^th session too.

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic Army وIn the previous session, he explained three cases of military plane hijackings carried out by the Mujahedin. In this session, he also explained one of these plane hijackings and the pilots who hijacked the plane with the collusion of the MEK and transferred military information. He submitted the documents to the court.

The next court session will be held on June 28^th, 2025.

The post Report on the 35th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

Judge Dehghani once more addressed the host countries of the defendants, saying: “According to international laws, terrorist crimes are separated from the rules on extradition of criminals. Based on Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, these charges are excluded from the list of political charges and, regarding the extradition of the defendants, they do not enjoy the protection of the impossibility of extraditing political criminals.

According to Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, none of the crimes stipulated in Article 2 of this Convention can be considered as extraditable crimes or legal cooperation between the parties. In Articles 1 and 2 of the 1997 European Union Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, if the perpetrator is arrested, he is tried or extradited.”

In the 34th session, Massoud Maddah, the plaintiffs’ lawyer filed a criminal complaint against the second defendant, Massoud Rajavi. Based on the testimonies of two members of technical staff of the flight that carried Rajavi to Paris, Massoud Rajavi was armed during the flight trip. He and his comrades forcefully stop the crew at gunpoint and take them onto the plane, effectively carrying out a hostage-taking and flight high jacking.

Iraj Salehi former member of the group, the then personal bodyguard of Massoud Rajavi, testified about the flight highjack. He stated that Massoud Rajavi admitted the fact in his speeches during the meetings in Camp Ashraf in 1994.
Three family members of victims of the MEK’s terrorist acts, also testified in the court, describing how their loved ones were killed by the MEK terror operators.

Mohammad Reza Goli was another former member of the MEK who testified about the MEK’s operations in Iran’s border areas in 1993, Mortar fire by MEK terror teams between 1998 and 2001.

In the end, the judge declared that the next session will be held on June 10, 2025.

The post Report on the 34th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

Judge Dehghani, condoling the Shahid Rajaee Port incident, said: “What measures the power of countries is their human resources. A factor that is more important and colorful than other factors. In developing countries, the presence of human resources is a factor in the development of that country, and therefore, the assassination of human resources is considered the most important soft power source of countries, a power that cannot be replaced in any way. Today, many terrorist organizations target the most important source of power production of a country, which is human resources, in order to hold countries back from development and a constructive role in global positions. This is why the assassination of people in various forms is one of the most horrific acts among countries; and this is so unacceptable that it has caused no country, even if it is a terrorist state, to openly support terrorist groups.”

According to the judge, throughout the world, international organizations and the United Nations have adopted numerous conventions to combat terrorist acts that cause terror and fear, and countries even ostensibly declare their readiness to combat terrorism by joining the conventions.

Judge Dehghani asked the countries that host the MEK to extradite the suspects to a competent court. “According to international law and conventions, hosting terrorist suspects while a competent court is handling their charges is a crime,” he said.

The French government is hosting the first defendant) the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization as a legal entity) of the case. As judge Dehghani said, according to international conventions, hosting terrorist groups is against the conventions and creates criminal liability for the officials of this country, and these officials must be accountable to the government and people of Iran.
“Many of the court’s witnesses are former members of the main defendant (MEK), and very detailed testimonies have been presented in court regarding France’s hosting of the defendants”, the judge added.

Referring to some of the defenses raised in the previous court session, Massoud Maddah, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, said: “In this case, we deal with people who fought against oppression and the Shah, and who are fighters and mujahids, and who claim that a guerrilla should not survive for more than 6 months. Why is Massoud Rajavi alive and has not fought? When Rajavi was ordering the resistance units in the country to torture and assassinate people and hijack planes, he was in France. There are documents that Massoud Rajavi cooperated with SAVAK to the fullest extent. The Iranians who fought and took action against Iran are evidence of the conspiracy and betrayal of Rajavi and this organization.”

To defend his clients he added, “What Rajavi has committed is bombing, intimidation, public disorder, guerrilla attacks, torture, genocide, and hijacking, all of which are examples of the actions of terrorist groups.”

Maddah warned that as long as this organization exists, all of this group’s crimes can be spread to all people in the world, and no one will be safe from their criminal actions.

The lawyer added, “There is no doubt that legal entities can be held responsible towards others, and there is no doubt that these groups have civil liability, and therefore, in this regard, if there is a claim against legal entities, there is the possibility of claiming against the property of legal entities.”

According to Maddah, in criminal groups, criminal responsibility is transferred from members to their leaders, but in the case of legal entities, criminal responsibility is transferred from the leaders to members. For example, whenever Massoud Rajavi feels defeated, he orders assassinations so that the name of his organization is repeated in the media.

Following the court’s announcement to register a complaint against the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), many complaints have been sent from all over the country from people who were victims of the crimes of the organization, and 205 victims of the MEK group have registered their complaints, expressing their complaints against both the organization and its leaders.

At the end of the hearing, the judge said: The next court session will be held on May 13.

The post Report on the 32nd court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

Massoud Madah, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer emphasized on the fact that the court is not dealing with a simple criminal group. “We are dealing with an organized terrorist group that has committed acts with the support of intelligence services,” he said. Remarking Massoud Rajavi’s meeting with Taher Jalil Haboush, the head of the Iraqi intelligence service, in 1999, the lawyer mentioned that Rajavi explicitly stated in that meeting that he was in contact with the American, British, and French intelligence services.

According to Maddah, Based on what is stated in the indictment, the fifth reason for the MEK being a terrorist organization is that it was on the list of terrorist organizations by the United States until 2012 and was recognized as a terrorist organization by the European Union in 2005. Also, Maryam Qajar Azdanloo (Maryam Rajavi) was arrested on June 17, 2003, along with 165 leaders of the organization, by the anti-terrorist police in France for attacking the Iranian embassy and assassinating 25 defectors of the group.

The lawyer stated that from the perspective of criminology and the characteristics that have been declared for terrorist organizations, the organization should be included in the list of terrorist groups. Bombings, intimidation, public unrest, guerrilla attacks, torture, coups, mass murder and genocide, kidnappings and hijackings are just a few of the crimes committed by the MEK.

“This terrorist group tortured and martyred children from 18 months old to young students and students in the most heinous way possible,” he added. “No ethnicity or religion in this country has been safe from the actions and crimes of the MEK, and as long as the legal personality of this organization is established, these crimes will continue. Accordingly, my clients demand the dismissal of the MEK as a legal entity and that the extradition of its criminals and their punishment.”

During the court session, Hossein Sobhaninia, a member of the central office of the Islamic Republic Party and a witness of the bombing of the Party’s building, took the stand and, after taking the oath, stated:

“I remember that Mohammad Reza Kolahi (MEK member) was present that night in the space between the prayer place and the meeting hall, inviting and encouraging people to attend the hall. Members of this meeting usually attended with prior invitations, and since at that time most of the members of parliament were members of the Republican Party, in this incident 27 members of parliament, four government ministers, a number of deputy ministers, and a group of personalities and central members of the Islamic Republic Party were killed.”

Sobhaninia presented his testimonies about the killed and injured victims of the incident: “It took an hour for the basic facilities to arrive. They wanted to remove the roof with a crane, which increased the subsidence. Some of the victims were thrown out of the hall window and their bodies were outside the hall, including Ejei, the representative of Isfahan Derakhshan was also next to the window. An attempt was made to dig out the part where Ayatollah Beheshti was sitting, but with great difficulty his body came out, which was burned. These bodies were taken to the hospital and the others were pulled out of the rubble.”

Elaheh Pirouzfar, the lawyer for defendants in rows 88 to 107 of the case said: “Mr. Sobhaninia’s statement is consistent with the indictment. He says that the bombing was not the work of one person, and I confirm this because the bombing was next to the pillars (contrary to the previous witness’s statements). I want this matter to be explained.”

The judge said: “We invited a bomb expert to the court session for this matter, and in the 28th session, they announced that there were two bombs in the columns and one bomb next to Shahid Beheshti’s table. In fact, one of these statements, that there was a bomb next to Shahid Beheshti’s table, is consistent with the expert’s opinion, and the other opinion, that the bomb was next to the columns, is also consistent with part of the expert’s opinion. Each witness testified to the extent of his knowledge.”

The judge added: “In previous hearings, the bomb expert raised a point in court about the technology used to make this bomb, which has so far been immune from objection by the defendants’ lawyers. According to this expert’s opinion, making and placing such a bomb with this technology was not the work of anyone inside Iran; that is, such a bomb could not have been made and designed inside the country under those conditions, and the bomb in question was foreign.”

Massoud Maddah, the lawyer who filed the case, said: “The MEK had 7 cases of plane hijackings, one of which was on June 28th, 1983, when they hijacked a plane with 371 passengers and 19 crew members that was traveling from Shiraz to Tehran. The plane first landed in Kuwait and then was taken to France to Massoud Rajavi. A widespread action against the country’s internal and external security, of which the plane hijacking is a part.”

Ali Akbar, the legal representative of Iran Air, then took the stand and said: “The duty of Iran Air is to supervise the technical and operational performance of airlines. The plane that was hijacked by the MEK in 1983 belonged to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the main victim and plaintiff is Iran Air Company.”

The legal representative of Iran Air explained that the hijacking was registered by EKO and even with the help of EKO the plane was returned to the country. According to the case documents, with the coordination made, the plane was delivered to our country’s embassy two days later. According to Ali Akbar Iran Air is suing the MEK for this hijacking and requested the court to consider the severest punishment for the leaders of the group and the perpetrators of the hijacking.

Tohidi, a PhD in international law and university professor, explains the rules governing hijacking from an international perspective. He said, “Air piracy and hijacking are carried out for personal or specific vengeful purposes, such as demanding the release of specific prisoners or causing social unrest, and sometimes using aircraft as a weapon to target specific areas and buildings.”

The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft was adopted in 1970, and the discussion of hijacking was considered here, and an attempt was made to emphasize facilitating cooperation between states in preventing impunity for those who disrupt aviation security. Therefore, the 1970 Convention states several basic points. The first point is that Article 2 of it states that the contracting states have committed to punishing this crime severely. The second point is that Article 3, paragraph 3 of this Convention states that this Convention applies to both domestic and international flights, and the flight that the MEK hijacked was from Shiraz to Tehran and is covered by this Convention, according to Tohidi.

The judge concluded: “In view of the receipt of the plaintiff’s lawyer’s bill and the issued indictment, as well as the request for a postponement from Iran Air and the letter that the family of the complainant submitted to the court, the court accepts the Iran Air’s postponement to submit a complaint to the court in this regard and gives the Civil Aviation Organization this deadline for 10 days. In view of the statements of the legal representative that actions have been taken regarding the allegations that occurred during his time, the documentation must be submitted to the court, therefore, the Civil Aviation Organization is given a 10-day postponement within this period. Otherwise, due to the omission of the act, the court will refer the matter to the Tehran General Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The next court session will be held on April 28, 2025.”

The post Report on the 31st court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

The 30th court session examining the charges against 104 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as well as the organization’s nature as a legal entity, was held on March 4th in branch 11 of the Criminal Court of Tehran Province, presided over by Judge Amir Reza Dehghani.

After the Judge started the commence of the trial, Madah, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, reviewed the previous sessions saying that pamphlets that were discovered in the 1360s from the MRK team houses were presented to the court.

In these pamphlets, the MEK taught bombing, forgery, stealing people’s cars, forming team houses, keeping weapons, and carrying out operations and assassinating the people of Iran. The source of these pamphlets is the MEK’s official journal, Mujahed.

According to the lawyer, some other pamphlets were not taken from the journal. They only had a security code and this pamphlet was given to the head of the unit team to distribute among the members. These pamphlets were discovered in the MEK cars and team houses. Maddah said, “If the defendants’ lawyers have doubts about the authenticity of these pamphlets, they can refer them to an expert”.

The problem raised by the defendants’ lawyers was that some of the defendants were not members of the organization at the time of the crime and later became members of the organization.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer replied: “Being a member of a criminal group is enough for a person to be considered a rebel. It is not necessary to take up arms. More than 17 of the organization’s former members and a large number of experts have appeared in court so far and testified that the accused ones of the organization were involved in bombings and assassinations.”

Mansour Nazari, a former member of the MEK who was a member of the group, for about 23 years appeared in the court. He lives in France and he states that had showed up in the court voluntarily. In his testimonies, Nazari spoke of a victim of torture in the MEK:

I was present at the trial of this person. Fathollah Fathi wanted to leave the organization, but people like Mahvash Sepehri said that this person should be executed. The MEK is a corrupt and complicated system, and they treated and tortured people who were recruited by it and wanted to leave the organization in the worst way.

About his own experience of being tortured he said, “I was under a lot of mental pressure and in all the meetings they held, such as the Digh meeting [one of the self-criticism meetings in the MEK], where they subjected people to mental and psychological pressure. In the Dagh meetings, they subjected and attacked those who had problems. I myself have been subjected many times in these meetings, especially by Mojgan Parsai, who was notoriously known for her violence and brutality.”

“During the 22 years that I left the organization, I have said many times in various articles that the organization’s defectors are like an antidote to this cancerous tumor.”

In response to the question of the lawyer for the defendants about how decisions were made, communicated, and implemented in theMEK, Mansour Nazari said: “Decision-making is always made by the top of the organization, and other members, except for the executor, are not informed of the decisions. The leadership council includes women from the organization, including Maryam Rajavi, Mahvash Sepehri, Fahmieh Arvani, Mojgan Parsiai, Roqiyeh Abbasi, Zohreh Atrianfar, Sepideh Ebrahimi, Zahra Marikhi, Jila Dehim, Mehraban Hajinejad, Soraya Shahri, and more, but I don’t remember when they made the decisions.”

He added, “The members of the Leadership Council were the executors of the orders of the head of the organization and made decisions on how to execute and implement them. Therefore, they are the executors and decision-makers. They were also informed of the actions and were in contact with all members of the MEK.

Elahe Pirouzfar, the lawyer for the defendants, appeared on the stand and asked Mansour Nazari, whether women played a role in the decision-making regarding the terrorist act. Nazari replied: The members of the Leadership Council were the executors of the orders of the head of the organization and made decisions on how to execute and implement them. Therefore, they are the executors and decision-makers. They were also aware of the actions and were in contact with all members of the MEK.

Seyyed Jalal Sadatian, one of the survivors of the terrorist attack that blew up the office of the Islamic Republic Party, appeared on the stand and said: “My ears were damaged in the explosion and my body parts were damaged, and the damage caused cannot be compensated.”

Yasser Ezzati, a former child soldier of the MEK also testified ih the 30^th session of the MEK trial. He was involved with the MEK since he was 3. He left the group at the age of 27.

He addressed the court:

When I was younger, we, about 800 of us, ranging from infants to 19 years old, were sent to Germany to receive the necessary trainings. Kak Saleh [a commander of the MEK ranks], gave us organizational training and brainwashed us. We returned to Iraq in 1976, and in 1977, I witnessed the self-immolation of people at Camp Ashraf who could not cope with the conditions there. Also, in 1999, one of the members killed himself with a gun, which the MEK’s journal published under the title “Unwanted Shot.”

Ezzati explained about the female child soldier, Alan Mohammadi: “Alan Mohammadi was 15 years old. She was a militia like me. I mean she had been trained to be a child soldier but she did not have such a personality for fighting, struggle and revolution. She could not bear it and she shot heقlself.”

Masoud Sadeghi Azad, a survivor of the terrorist attack on the Islamic Republic Party’s office, appeared on the stand and after taking the oath, stated:

“Usually, people would receive invitations to enter the meetings in the office of the party, meaning that no one would enter this meeting without an invitation, but that day, Mr. Kolahi strangely guided everyone who was in the courtyard into the building.”

Asked by judge Dehghani if he had any information about Kolahi, the operative of the explosion, Sadeghi Azad answered, “Until the party building was blown up, we did not know Mr. Kolahi. He was in charge of the meetings. Kolahi always checked the invitations, but on the day of the incident, he brought people into the hall with great courtesy. Apparently, he had placed a box of explosives in a book cover under the meeting table. I was working in the Prime Minister’s office at the time. Kashmiri also killed Martyr Bahonar and Martyr Rajai. Kashmiri was someone we all followed in leading prayers and he became the Imam of the congregation. This is how hypocrisy misleads people.”

In the end, Judge Dehghani said: So far, the statements of 14 families of victims have been heard in court and their complaints have been registered, and more than 12 lawyers were present in court. 5 are the defendants’ hired lawyers, and the opinions of 10 experts in the offending fields have been used, and 28 witnesses have testified in court that 17 were members of the organization that had left and 11 were members of the Republican Party or committee commanders and firefighters. Given that the number of complaints is large, we expect a long time for the hearings. The next court session will be held on April 14, 1404.

The post Report on the 30th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.

The judge announced the opening of the court saying: Given the presence of the prosecutor’s representative, the lawyers of the plaintiffs and defendants, and some of the plaintiffs in the session, and the formality and openness of the court, in compliance with all the formalities of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, and Articles 296, 297, 315, and 382 of this law, we will begin the continuation of the first session by declaring it official and public.

The plaintiff’s lawyer, Masoud Maddah, said: “Regarding the terrorist crimes of the MEK, in the previous session we applied the legal dimensions of this issue to the crime of leading a criminal group and its organization with engineering operations.

In this session, I will apply the examples and material elements of the crime of leading a criminal group, the subject of Article 130 of the Islamic Penal Code, to one of the most pivotal crimes that the MEK committed, which was the discussion of team houses and repeated assassinations and torture.”

According to lawyer Maddah, it is not necessarily the case that the leaders of the MEK themselves are directly involved in criminal operations. It is not the case that in the bombings, assassinations, and tortures, need to be present in the crimes and carry them out.

Presenting some examples of the MEK crimes, the lawyer said, “At one point in time, the MEK took actions such as assassinating civilians to demonstrate its existence, as I presented the confessions of a MEK member named Mehran Asadeghi in the previous session. He stated that the organization ordered us to carry out these terrorist acts if 30 out of every 50 people were ordinary people so that the organization would survive and demonstrate its existence. They reproduce numerous pamphlets and distribute them among their members in team houses.”

Massoud Khodabandeh, a defected member of the MEK who had been a member of the group for 16 years, appeared on the stand and swore to tell nothing but the truth in court.

Khodabandeh said in court: “I became acquainted with the organization a few years before the revolution, and then I went to England and became a member of the organization, and I was in Iranian Kurdistan for 2 years. After that, I went to Iraq with Massoud Rajavi. I traveled to Iraq and Europe. I took Maryam Rajavi from Iraq to France. In France, I decided to leave the organization. I had 2 passports, which I handed in and went to London, and I have been in contact with the MEK since 1998. With the help of my wife, I wrote 3 books about the MEK. During this time, I also participated in a court as a witness. I appeared in this court today. I confirm all the books and pamphlets introduced in the court.”

The former member of the MEK, said: “I was in the organization for 15 years. I was present in England as a supporter. We established the Committee to Support the People’s Mojahedin in London with the help of Dr. Reza Raisi. Then I went to prison. After my release, I went to Paris. I was assigned to take Radio Mojahedin to the Sardasht region, where I was in this region for 2 years. After that, I went to Iraq and Paris. In Paris, I was responsible for protecting Bani Sadr’s daughter. After Massoud Rajavi’s divorce from Bani Sadr’s daughter, I was with Maryam Rajavi. I was on the team to take over Camp Ashraf and develop it. Sometime later, I left the organization and since then I have been collecting materials related to the Mojahedin.”

Massoud Khodabandeh said: “The process of producing a person who straps a bomb to himself and detonates it is already in his book. They named people as leaders, they tortured these people and ordered others to torture them. I took Mehdi Abrishamchi and took him to Kurdistan. When this person came, he was different from the person who tortured him later, just like Massoud Rajavi, whom we saw earlier, was different from the Rajavi who went to Saddam. Ugliness gradually happens and an ordinary person cannot suddenly become a torturer.”

He said: “In meetings, men were forced to curse their wives and divorce their wives. One of these people, named Commander Kamal, was in that meeting and refused to accept it, so they took him out and half an hour later they said he had set himself on fire. In fact, Massoud and his apparatus claimed that they were doing these things against me and that these people should be eliminated in a way that their voices would not be heard. There is a voice of Massoud in a meeting saying how much money to take and carry out a terrorist act.”

Khodabandeh continued: “During Saddam’s era, if I wanted to implement a project, they would pay for it, but this has not happened for years and they cannot invite someone from, for example, Canada, pay for his accommodation and other expenses to participate in the MKO gatherings, so they use people from within the same country. An American senator told me that when someone is attacking the Islamic Republic, we do not become enemies with him.”

The judge asked: When did these statements come from?
Khodabandeh replied: “Four or five years ago. Currently, the MKO has changed shape. At one time, this organization, centered on Saddam and Massoud Rajavi, only carried out military terrorist operations. This military terrorist apparatus became an information and propaganda apparatus after Turki Faisal (who announced Massoud Rajavi’s death without coordination). The core of this organization was also entrusted to Turki Faisal and Maryam Rajavi. After Saddam’s death, there was no place for Massoud Rajavi in this organization, so he had to be put aside, dead or alive. I tried many times to speak in the Brussels court, but they did not allow me to do so.”

The post Report on the 29th court session of the MEK’s trial appeared first on Nejat Society.