Four-minute read
On January 14, news broke of the suicide of Ebrahim Nabavi, a well-known Iranian satirist. The story reverberated across social media and news outlets, evoking polarized reactions. Nabavi’s career path—once rooted in state-controlled media before transitioning to Persian-language platforms abroad—has left a controversial legacy. Revisionist factions within the regime who sell themselves as “reformists,” criticized authorities for barring Nabavi from returning to Iran. Meanwhile, many Iranians highlighted his record, particularly his attempts to obscure the clerical regime’s atrocities, including his repeated appeals to forget the massacre of political prisoners in the 1980s.
Nabavi’s narrative as a former political prisoner—one who claimed to have endured the regime’s mistreatment—might appear compelling to international observers. Yet this case, like others, unveils a far more intricate reality. The clerical dictatorship has practically and efficiently long exploited its Achilles’ heel: its lack of legitimacy. Through sophisticated psychological strategies, the regime has turned even dissent into a tool for its survival.
The Manufactured Opposition
The Iranian regime has mastered the art of using controlled dissent to shield itself from existential threats. As noted in a 2012 Library of Congress report, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) employs various tactics to infiltrate opposition abroad. These include fabricating dissident personas for individuals who are, in reality, regime operatives. As the report explains, “MOIS uses its former members and/or people willing to cooperate with the ministry. They are sent to prison temporarily and become known as activists opposed to the Islamic Republic. After some time, no one questions their previous political activities; being a political prisoner is enough to be acknowledged as an opposition figure.”
This manufactured opposition allows the regime to project an image of pluralism while undermining the validity of authentic dissidents, who typically enjoy the trust and respect of the Iranian community for their sacrifices. Such tactics not only weaken the broader opposition movement but also sow deep mistrust within exile communities, fracturing their unity and making it harder to build a cohesive front against the regime.
Contained within a proposal obtained and subsequently disclosed by the #Iranian dissident group, MOIS Chief Esmail Khatib communicated to President Ebrahim Raisi that the RFJ Program aimed to accomplish the following:
* Recruitment of individuals to serve as spies and incentivize… pic.twitter.com/vqmAZhF8oG— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) June 10, 2023
One illustrative example is Maziar Ebrahimi, whom the regime once accused of espionage and subjected to torture. Ebrahimi, now based abroad, recounts these experiences in media interviews, presenting himself as a staunch opponent of the regime. Yet his activities extend beyond opposition to the Islamic Republic; he is an ardent supporter of the remnants of Iran’s former monarchy, directing his criticism not only at the current regime but also at organized opposition groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its principal member, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
The Role of Reformists in the Regime’s Strategy
The so-called “reformists” within the regime, those who position themselves as critics while upholding the system’s core structures, play a pivotal role in this strategy. The January 19 edition of Shargh, a reformist-leaning newspaper, unintentionally shed light on the regime’s selective approach to dissent. In an article criticizing the judiciary’s inconsistency, Shargh remarked, “The story of Ebrahim Nabavi raises an important question: what is the nature of decision-making in the Islamic Republic, and how can it be analyzed? Another example is Maziar Ebrahimi, who was initially accused by one security agency of spying and later deemed innocent by another. The Islamic Republic, in a completely progressive and just move, even paid him financial compensation.”
MUST-WATCH Clip: A compelling rebuttal to the accusation fabricated by #Iran regime’s intelligence agency, MOIS, claiming that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) participated in suppressing Iraqi Kurds following the 1991 Persian Gulf War.#IranProtests #IranRevoIution #MEK pic.twitter.com/nH6XaVJPPF
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) April 24, 2023
By presenting such cases as evidence of the regime’s supposed capacity for reform, Shargh and similar outlets seek to frame the Islamic Republic as a system capable of self-correction. Yet this framing masks the regime’s systemic reliance on repression and manipulation. As Shargh inadvertently acknowledged, “Some environmental activists are accused of espionage and released after five years in prison. But how can someone be a spy and only serve five years? … The double standards applied to figures like Mehdi Nasiri and Mostafa Tajzadeh are of the same nature; leniency for one and harshness for the other.”
Mehdi Nasiri’s case exemplifies the revisionist approach of so-called reformists. A former editor of the state-controlled Kayhan, Nasiri has rebranded himself as a vocal critic of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. His activities include giving interviews to Persian-language media and traveling abroad to advocate for alliances between reformists and exiled figures such as Reza Pahlavi. Upon his return to Iran, Nasiri faced no repercussions, leaving observers to conclude that the regime tolerates dissent when it serves its interests. By creating the illusion of internal critique, figures like Nasiri bolster the regime’s narrative that it allows free expression.
In 2019, Hashem Khastar, a prominent leader of a teachers’ union in Iran and now still imprisoned, revealed in a letter smuggled out of prison how Iranian intelligence agents had pressured him during an interrogation to denounce the MEK. They also asked if he was willing to collaborate with Reza Pahlavi and participate in activities against the clerical regime.
#Iran’s Regime Admits Failure in 44-Year Effort to Discredit #MEKhttps://t.co/rgxK3iXWrE
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) January 29, 2024
A Subtle but Crucial Litmus Test
The clerical regime’s survival strategy is rooted in its ability to manipulate perceptions of opposition, both domestically and internationally. Over decades of facing widespread resistance from the Iranian population, the regime has adopted increasingly sophisticated methods to maintain its grip on power. Its most insidious tactic has been to blur the line between genuine dissent and controlled opposition, thereby sowing mistrust even among those who oppose the regime.
For the international community, distinguishing between these two categories is challenging but essential. A practical and nuanced measure lies in evaluating attitudes toward the NCRI and MEK. These groups, as the most organized and uncompromising opponents of the regime, serve as a clear delineation. The regime’s red line—the point at which its so-called dissidents and reformists reveal their true alignment—is any association with these organizations.
The Iranian regime’s calculated use of fabricated dissidents is not just a tool of survival—it’s a weapon of deception that extends far beyond its borders. By infiltrating foreign nations with agents and compromised individuals, Tehran has blurred the line between genuine opposition and manufactured narratives, leaving policymakers unable to separate fact from fiction. These operatives don’t just misinform; they manipulate public opinion and sow confusion, preventing world leaders from grasping the true realities within Iran. The result? Leaders are repeatedly caught off guard by uprisings, protests, and shifts in Iranian society they fail to predict.
This deliberate strategy is more than a domestic power play—it’s a direct threat to global stability. Policymakers must recognize that tolerating such infiltration jeopardizes their own nations’ security and interests. The price of inaction is high: the continued betrayal of the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and the erosion of international resolve against a regime that thrives on deceit. Combating this requires not just awareness, but a resolute commitment to expose and neutralize these manufactured narratives before they can cause further harm.