This organization has built its political existence for years on crisis, sanctions, external pressure and the nuclear issue. Whenever tensions increased, it presented them as a sign of the nearness of the “collapse of the regime”. Whenever the paths of negotiation and agreement were opened, its media spoke of their failure.

Today, the situation has changed. An agreement and a reduction in tensions would deprive the organization of one of its most important political and propaganda tools. Therefore, its leaders try to present themselves as supporters of peace, in order to avoid even greater political isolation.

If peace is in the best interest of the Iranian people, why has the drumbeat of crisis been beaten for years? If war is a tragedy for the people, why was every sign of military confrontation presented as a political possibility? And if an agreement is desirable, why were policies promoted that led to the escalation of pressure and confrontation?

The problem is not that Maryam Rajavi is now talking about peace. The problem is that this stance contradicts the organization’s long history. An organization that has been nourished by crisis for decades is now trying to wear the mask of a peacemaker.

History does not lose its memory. What is presented today as “support for the agreement” looks more like an attempt to hide the fact that any lasting agreement and any reduction in tensions in the region takes away political ground from a movement that has for years linked its existence to the continuation of crises.

Hassan Shahbaz, former member of the MEK in Albania

Translated by Nejat Society

The post Maryam Rajavi’s Stance, Peace or Survival Tactic? appeared first on Nejat Society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Members of the European Parliament

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

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

Let me ask you directly:

Do you actually support what she represents?

Because her organization has a documented history of:

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

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

Murdering 25,000 Iraqi

Kurds and Shias in 1991.

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

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

So my question is simple

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

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

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

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

Shame on this double standard.

Sincerely,

A citizen who still remembers what human rights actually mean

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

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

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

Mazda Parsi

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no publicly available record or credible report of Maryam Rajavi having participated in a formal, unscripted debate with an opposing point of view or undergoing a challenging, in-depth interview with independent journalists where she is pressed on controversial aspects of her organization’s activities over the past four decades.

Her media engagements typically include prepared statements, speeches at rallies, and interviews with sympathetic news outlets or journalists where the questions are often pre-screened or aligned with the MEK’s democratic gesture. All interviewers follow the specific agenda of the group.

The absence of such engagements is often attributed to several factors. One primary reason cited by critics and observers is the MEK’s highly centralized and authoritarian structure, which discourages independent scrutiny and dissent. The MEK has faced numerous accusations of cult-like practices, human rights abuses against its own members within its camps, and a lack of internal democracy, which challenging interviews or debates could expose.

Furthermore, the MEK’s history of violent struggle and its designation as a terrorist organization by some countries (though later delisted by the US and EU) has led to a cautious approach to public relations, prioritizing controlled messaging over open dialogue.

The MEK’s strategy is focused on maintaining a consistent public image, concentrating on its opposition to Iranian government and its so-called vision for a democratic Iran, while avoiding situations that could lead to critical examination of its past or internal mechanisms such as cult-like practices under the despotic ruling of Maryam Rajavi and her disappeared husband Massoud Rajavi.

Some analysts argue that the MEK’s hierarchical and authoritarian structure, with the Rajavis at its apex, is incompatible with the transparency and accountability expected of a democratic leadership. The group’s documented history of internal purges, isolation of members, and strict ideological control are reasons why open debate format would be problematic for their narrative.

It is difficult to consider Maryam Rajavi a democratic leader of a democratic organization based on her consistent avoidance of open, challenging journalistic scrutiny and the documented internal practices of the MEK, despite her widely propagated ten-point plan for future of Iran.

Mazda Parsi

The post Maryam Rajavi’s controlled messaging over open dialogue appeared first on Nejat Society.

Most critics believe that despite the modern and pro-democracy appearance of the aforementioned plan, the implementation of this plan by the MEK is in contradiction with the MEK’s history and its authoritarian internal structure. However, in this article, we will discuss one of the provisions of the plan that is subject to criticism in itself: the seventh article of Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan for the future of Iran.

The seventh article of the so-called plan indicates a disregard for Iranian national and territorial integrity due to its stance on minorities’ autonomy. This is a complex issue with different interpretations.

Minorities’ autonomy or separatism

While the plan advocates for the self-governance of ethnic minorities including Kurds, within a so-called democratic framework, its implications for national integrity are debated among analysts and researchers.
“self-governance” within the context that Maryam Rajavi claims, refers to administrative and cultural autonomy. She claims that “Iran’s national unity and territorial integrity” would be the framework of such autonomy.

However, critics view any form of significant autonomy for ethnic minorities as a potential precursor to separatism, regardless of the claimed intentions, especially given the historical context of ethnic tensions in Iran.

History of cooperation between the MEK and the separatists

The MEK’s background indicates that its political wing, National Council of Resistance has a historical alliance with Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) which is an armed leftist separatist movement of Kurds in Iran. This have been considered as opportunistic and driven by shared opposition to the Iranian government. The KDP itself has historically sought greater autonomy for Kurds within Iran.

Besides, the MEK sympathizes with Jaysh al-Adl, a Sunni Islamist and separatist militia in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Although there is no credible evidence of cooperation between the two groups, the MEK media not only has not condemned the terrorist attacks of the group, but has always reported them with bias in favor of Jaysh al-Adl.

Documents were also recently published showing that the National Council of Resistance Office in the United States (NCRIUS) has provided financial aid to the Tahririyah Talab group of the Struggle for the Liberation of Ahwaz. According to this document, Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy representative of the National Council of Resistance in the United States, has provided $350,000 in financial assistance to Saeed Hamidan, the leader of the Struggle for the Liberation of Ahwaz, in order to “support” him and his so-called “liberation” movement.

In its efforts to destabilize the Iranian government, leaders of the MEK not only ignore national and territorial integrity but also, they try to synergize with separatist groups in order to seek power in Iran.

The nature of such alliance can be strategic, focusing on immediate shared goals against a common enemy but it has not succeeded in over four decades. It just definitely marks the very characteristic of the MEK as an opportunistic hypocrite group.

Mazda Parsi

The post Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan Violates Iran’s Territorial Integrity appeared first on Nejat Society.

Numerous reports from former members, human rights organizations, and investigative journalists detail a highly authoritarian and cult-like environment within the MEK, directly contradicting the democratic and human rights principles espoused in Rajavi’s public agenda.

The following are examples of the contradiction between Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan and what is actually being done within the MEK, extracted from non-Iranian sources. Therefore, the documents – which are included at the end of the article

– do not provide any evidence that Rajavi is implementing the provisions of his ten-month plan within his organization.

–Former members have consistently described mandatory participation in ideological sessions, self-criticism rituals, and adherence to strict dress codes, including forced hijab for women, even outside of Iran.

–The policy of forced celibacy, implemented by the MEK leader Massoud Rajavi in the late 1980’s and continued under Maryam Rajavi’s leadership, requires members to divorce their spouses and abstain from sexual relations, ostensibly to focus solely on the “revolution”.

Based on Massoud Rajavi’s doctrine, “revolution” refers to “ideological revolution” which is a cult jargon in the MEK that requires members to dedicate their entire being to the cause of the group.

–Gender segregation is also widely reported within MEK camp and facilities, further contradicting any claims of gender equality or individual freedom.

In a quite brief review, it is detected that the above-mentioned practices stand in stark contrast to the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of choice, and gender equality outlined in Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point plan, which advocates for a democratic, secular and non-nuclear Iran.

Mazda Parsi

Sources:
1.Human Rights Watch. “No Exit: Human Rights Abuses inside the MKO”
1.RAND Corporation. “The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A policy conundrum.”
3.Goulka, Jeremiah, et al. “The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)”
4.Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. “Cult of Personality: The MEK’s abuses of Its Own Members.”
5.Maryam Rajavi. “Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan for Future Iran.

The post Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan and Internal Practices appeared first on Nejat Society.

It depends on who’s proposing third option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic values and Third Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mazda Parsi

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

According to her own claim, Maryam Rajavi has been proposing the “third option” since 2006. She reiterated this claim last week in a hall she had rented at the European Parliament with some people in attendance.

What is the third option?

The third option, according to the MEK, is the only option for confronting the Iranian government. The other two options are what the MEK refers to as “appeasement and foreign military attack.” Maryam Rajavi says that appeasement –negotiations with the Islamic Republic– has only served to strengthen Tehran and develop its nuclear program. The MEK also claims that they do not support foreign military intervention. They say war is not the answer to the “Iran problem.”
According to Maryam Rajavi, the MEK’s third option involves “democratic” change by Iranian “people” and the “resistance”. The term “resistance” refers to the MEK and its political front, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
Presenting the third option confronts Maryam Rajavi with at least one fundamental question: How can the “Iranian Resistance” guarantee that this option is democratic?

MEK Seeking Legitimacy

The MEK has never been seen as the legitimate resistance of the Iranian people. This is because they lack credibility and trust in the eyes of Iranians. The contradictions in their strategies and actions contribute to their discrediting, and as a result, they not only lose their legitimacy but also appear hypocritical. Therefore, it is difficult for the MEK to gain the support of Iranians and the international community and to convince them of the effectiveness of their ideas.
The little support the MEK receives among Western politicians seems to be based on the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The reality is that they provide the “right” answers for politicians seeking to justify their radical, violent policy against Tehran.

The MEK’s violent past and terrorist attacks undermine their claim of legitimacy based on their past struggles, and their reluctance to respond to criticism exacerbates this. They have never responded to criticisms for their collaboration with Saddam Hussein and killing their own compatriots in terrorist attacks. The MEK leaders are generally seen as short-sighted and despotic.

Legitimacy or charisma of the Rajavis?

Maryam’s charisma, especially in the international community, is effective to a certain extent. She presents herself as a representative of peace, freedom, and democracy. An appearance that would not seem typical for the leader of a terrorist group. However, the special and unattainable position that both she and Massoud have in the organization completely undermines their claim to be democratically elected, and thus reinforces the fact that the MEK is a cult of personality.
Although the MEK’s political institutions have some international momentum, they lack credibility. The so-called National Council of Resistance was supposed to be run on democratic principles, but the leadership—Maryam Rajavi as the president of the council—has far more power than all the council members. The structure of the council is absolutely authoritarian.
The MEK cannot prove its democratic intentions simply by declaring them through words. They must prove that the principles they claim to uphold apply to them as well, but to date they have failed to prove this.

The obvious failure of the third option

The MEK ideology has failed to gain popular support. Their radical actions, both at the organizational and external relations levels, prevent political reform, and as a result, they lose potential supporters rather than reaching a wider audience.
Their totalitarianism, which bases their arguments and actions on black and white, completely right or completely wrong, completely good or completely bad, contributes to their political isolation.
The contradictions in the MEK’s words and actions have led to their failure to gain legitimacy. They continue to struggle for recognition. Despite more than forty years of talking about the imminent overthrow of the Iranian government, their future remains uncertain and complex.

The Problem with the third option

The third option is problematic. It is presented as an answer to the “Iran problem,” but it raises more questions than it answers. The third option promises a lot, but it is difficult to understand how to implement it and how to reconcile it with reality.
Contrary to the severe and complex problems that the MEK claims Iran is facing, their solution is oversimplified and seems impossible to achieve. They give black and white ultimatums. They are caught up in good or bad, right or wrong thinking. In the real world, nothing is “either or.” The world has many shades of gray.
When Maryam Rajavi promises to realize her dream for a future Iran through third option, she is denying reality. The “Iranian resistance” is not real. The MEK’s legitimacy in the Iranian public is not real. The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has failed to gain legitimacy, and consequently the third option proposed by Maryam Rajavi is meaningless.

Mazda Parsi

The post On Maryam Rajavi’s Welcome to the Ceasefire and Reiteration of the Third Option appeared first on Nejat Society.

France’s TF1 Info began with a controversial headline: “Is Maryam Rajavi, leader of the MEK, skilled in thalassotherapy?”
Thalassotherapy (from the Greek word thalassa, meaning “sea”) is the use of seawater as a form of therapy. It also includes the systematic use of sea products and shore climate. It refers to a variety of treatments that use saltwater and seaweed, each designed to cleanse, soothe and revitalize the skin and body. And so far, according to documents obtained by French media, it has cost Maryam Rajavi over 130,000 euros.

TF1 Info then introduced the MEK and Maryam Rajavi’s background, referring to the “terrorist” status of this cult by the Iranian people and the European Union, and gave an overview of the group’s terrorist background and actions in France, then Iraq, and again in France.

The report implies the cooperation of the MEK with the French government. The TF1’s report was published after claims by the leaders of this terrorist group that they had protested against French politicians and media, calling them accomplices of the Iranian government.

While residents of Ashraf 3 are rationed for food and hygiene products and are constantly criticized for the costs they impose on the group, Maryam Rajavi, with a dozen bodyguards, rents a five-star hotel for her private stay. She enjoys fancy medical services under the flamboyant name of thalassotherapy, while just a few months ago the group asked Mehdi Javedan’s family outside the organization to cover the cost of his heart surgery. Mehdi Javedan, a longtime member of her organization, died two months ago.

Days after the publication of the reports of French media, the organization is still busy responding, or in better words, accusing. The responses are full of generalizations, repetition of the usual statements, and slander and libel.

Documents on money laundering

By the way, the MEK cult is currently in a very weak position vis-à-vis the French government. It is very likely that after France, the governments of Canada, the United States, and other countries will purse the MEK’s financial resources and the group’s money laundering network.

The story of the baths and massage therapy with ocean mud and sediments to rejuvenate the skin of the self-proclaimed president of the resistance, Maryam Rajavi, the payment of large tips and numerous bribes to keep her and her companions’ identities secret, prompted the French government to make sure whether the financial resources for these expenses were provided by the MEK.

The French judiciary is reportedly investigating the matter, as between December 2024 and February 2025, two reports under Article 40 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the possibility of money laundering were submitted to the prosecutors of Ile-de-France and Hauts-de-France.

The reports point to companies that appear to be operating as financial fronts for the MEK. Front companies and institutions play a significant role in the MEK’s money laundering and revenue-generating network.

The organization was classified as a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union between 1997 and 2013. The group holds annual fundraising campaigns from its members and supporters. Last year alone, more than 7 million euros were raised in this way, some of which was spent on skin rejuvenation for Maryam and other high-ranking members of the organization, and the rest was spent on inciting Western governments through paid speeches and signing declarations against the Iranian government.

France’s relationship with the MEK

It seems that the MEK is a tool for France to gain concessions from the Islamic Republic regime. This rule has always been true for traitors who are tools in the hands of rivals or opponents. On March 18, Le Canard Enchainé exposed Maryam Rajavi’s luxurious life and her money laundering through front companies, probably under the guidance of the French intelligence and security agency DGSE.

Many believe that the recent article in Le Canard Enchainé was the prelude to an exchange between the two governments. 48 hours after the article was published, François Macron announced the release of a French citizen in Iran. In this way, France, for its own economic interests, is gaining some of the Islamic Republic’s consent by putting pressure on the MEK.
The DGSE is aware of the money laundering and fake identities of the front organizations and Rajavi’s dirty nature, but it is not taking any practical action. Which group with such a track record in France is allowed to commit these violations, such that they are constantly in the squares of Paris defrauding Parisian citizens for fake charities to cover the cost of Maryam Rajavi’s thalassotherapy? It seems that France is always monitoring the MEK, but it also needs a weakened version of it.

Mazda Parsi

The post Why are the MEK’s blatant money laundering documents being ignored? appeared first on Nejat Society.