Three-minute read
On January 11, a landmark transatlantic conference in Paris brought together political leaders and activists to discuss a decisive shift in Western policy toward Iran. The event underscored a clear consensus: peace in the Middle East and global security hinge on regime change in Tehran. The meeting, widely covered by international media, featured sharp criticism of the West’s longstanding appeasement policies and presented a blueprint for empowering Iran’s democratic opposition.
Unsurprisingly, Tehran was quick to voice its discontent. The regime’s outrage was predictable, given the presence of an official from the incoming U.S. administration and the conference’s prominent platform. However, the surprising development was the intensity of attacks from self-proclaimed regime opponents—not against Tehran, but against the Iranian Resistance, particularly the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK/PMOI).
Social media and video platforms became battlegrounds. On YouTube, one individual, ostensibly a supporter of Iran’s deposed monarchy, dismissed the MEK’s organizational strength with anecdotes that lacked substance. Others, surrounded by symbols of Iran’s former royal family, insisted that the Paris conference was insignificant, urging followers to remain unconcerned. A third berated a major media outlet for covering the event, hurling invective at attendees and guest speakers. Meanwhile, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) buzzed with activity from anonymous accounts attacking anyone associated with the Resistance, often using rhetoric eerily similar to that of the Iranian regime.
The Untarnished Truth: Regime’s Forty-Year Battle to Discredit the #MEK #FreeIran2023 https://t.co/qOJPiWXoYq
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) July 9, 2023
This peculiar focus raises a fundamental question: why do these purported opponents of the regime expend more energy attacking the MEK than challenging the very government they claim to oppose? Their priorities appear misaligned, inadvertently favoring the status quo over a viable democratic alternative. This alignment in tone and messaging with Tehran’s narrative creates uncomfortable parallels, prompting critical observers to wonder if these attacks are, directly or indirectly, influenced by the regime’s apparatus.
The MEK, it should be noted, has borne the brunt of Tehran’s repression. Over four decades, its members have endured mass executions, torture, and exile. Despite this, the group has persistently exposed the regime’s nuclear ambitions, terror networks, and human rights abuses. These efforts are not isolated acts; they are made possible by a vast network inside Iran. Thousands of MEK Resistance Units operate daily under immense risk, braving the regime’s security apparatus and inspiring a nation yearning for freedom. Their courage galvanizes public discontent and showcases the regime’s vulnerability.
Yet detractors dismiss these achievements with narratives that often lack evidence or coherence. From accusations of “political lobbying” to claims of “brainwashing,” they downplay the MEK’s role in challenging the regime while offering no viable alternative for change. This unwillingness to confront the MEK’s tangible impact reflects a deeper reluctance to acknowledge the sacrifices made by those who risk everything for a free Iran.
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 undermining the MEK, these voices bolster Tehran’s position. Attacking the most organized and effective opposition diverts attention from the regime’s extensive machinery of oppression. In many instances, their rhetoric not only echoes Tehran’s propaganda but also serves as a distraction from the regime’s own failures and crimes, leading to speculation about possible coordination or exploitation of these attacks by regime operatives.
Tehran has spent decades entrenching itself as a regional power, leveraging proxies, and suppressing dissent domestically. Western policymakers were slow to recognize this threat, and now they must confront a regime more emboldened than ever. However, it is equally critical to scrutinize efforts that target the Resistance rather than the regime itself. These attacks weaken the prospects for meaningful change and play directly into Tehran’s hands.
The stakes could not be higher. In a country that hasn’t held a free election, where opinion polls are surveilled and manipulated by state security, dismissing the MEK as irrelevant ignores its demonstrable impact. The MEK’s intelligence network has consistently revealed classified information about Tehran’s nuclear and military activities, organized large-scale demonstrations abroad, and exposed the regime’s abuses. Their efforts continue to challenge Tehran’s legitimacy in ways few others have.
Any impartial observer would find the arguments of the MEK’s detractors flimsy at best. Their tendency to substitute evidence with insults, doctored images, and conspiracy theories reflects poorly on their credibility. When confronted with hard questions about the MEK’s resilience and success, their responses often devolve into baseless allegations and hyperbolic claims.
For those with the most at stake in Iran, the implications are clear. Undermining the MEK—the most organized and effective opposition force—does not pave the way for a “third option.” It merely ensures the regime’s survival. Whether motivated by personal bias or calculated self-interest, those who engage in such attacks ultimately serve Tehran’s agenda, consciously or otherwise.
At a time when the Iranian regime faces unprecedented challenges, both from within and abroad, the question for its critics should not be, “Who is worse than the mullahs?” but rather, “Who has the capacity and courage to stand against them?” The MEK has answered that call, supported by a network of Resistance Units that continue to inspire and mobilize. The same cannot be said for its detractors.