The MEK has no support inside Iran and was on America’s list of terrorist organizations. Yet today, some American politicians are standing by their side and backing them. Why?
I didn’t grow up in a political or religious household. I left Iran in 1983 at the age of 5. Thanks to my father’s occupation running the Spanish embassy in Tehran and helping keep the Spaniards out of trouble in post-1979 Iran, we were one of the lucky ones, spending a year in Madrid before relocating for good to Canada. We never discussed politics and I grew up secular. I am as Canadian as they come, but while you can take a kid out of Iran, you don’t take Iran out of him. I have no political aspirations in Canada, let alone Iran. I respect all Iranians and don’t lose sight of the privilege I had relative to those who left as refugees and mainly, lost closer loved ones.
After 10/7, my interest in history & current affairs led me down a rabbit hole to better understand the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Given the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereafter referred to simply as Iran)’s investments in the Levant to create a so-called Axis of Resistance, it wasn’t long before my love and passion drew me into the long history of Iran, the oldest nation in the world predating even Egypt and going back to 3200 BC, inventor of some of the world’s most incredible feats.
But despite not being political, one thing that was clear was that despite the mosaic that is Iranians’ views of their history, current reality & possible future, the only two things most agreed on was:
1) the importance of its territorial integrity (can expand on why in a future article) and
2) their disdain for the MEK, or Mojahedin-e-Khalq – an Islamist-Marxist organization referred to as a cult by critics. Having sided with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – who backed by American and other western nations, armed, financed & encouraged his use of conventional and chemical weapons not only on Iranians, but on Iraq’s own Kurdish community in Halabja.
Reality Check: Some Much Needed Real Talk & Tough Love
In the past year, Iranians have been dismayed at the sight of popular Republican politicians in Donald Trump’s first administration – namely former VP Mike Pence & former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – standing side-by-side on stage with the current leader of the MEK, Maryam Rajavi, who assumed the helm after the apparent death of its previous leader, her husband Massoud, allegedly killed in Iraq in the wake of the American invasion of 2003.
Dismay morphed into shock when more recently, the UK’s venerable The Telegraph ran an op-ed by Rajavi herself. I discussed that then here. More recently Iranians grew further incredulous when Keith Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, once again reiterated that the MEK was the best alternative to the current government in Iran, led by the Mullahs who have held power since an Islamic Revolution swept into power, abolishing 2500 of monarchic rule going back to the days of Cyrus the Great, who built the first global power and is widely seen as one of the greatest leaders throughout history, influencing the likes of Aristotle, Alexander the Great (on whom I wrote my second book The Confessions of Alexander the Great), Roman leaders, and even more recent American leaders like Thomas Jefferson.
That Iran’s leader has gone from Cyrus the Great to possibly the MEK’s Rajavi is enough to send shivers down most Iranians’ spine, knowing very well that to most Iranians, the MEK is no better than the current Iranian government which is the Michael Jordan of executions of its own people.
Iranians take some solace in knowing that Pompeo & Pence have been excluded from Trump’s second administration (not surprising, since Trump effectively stood by as his VP was threatened to be lynched in the January 6 insurrection – but begzarim). In fact, one could argue that the fact that Pompeo & Pence are excluded from official positions in Trump 2.0 while lending credibility to the MEK is even more dangerous, as it allows Trump to pretend to negotiate with Iran on a second JCPOA-style deal during his administration (he is The Art of the Deal guy, after all, and as stated on record that he does not seek regime change in Iran), as he turns a blind eye to Israel’s continued dismantling of Iran’s proxies & its military assets inside Iran.
Wake up, Iranians: This is Why American Politicians are backing the MEK
Imagine someone starts to take an interest in Iran. This could be someone like me, a non-political Iranian in the 10 million who make up the diaspora, or an American politician who is unfamiliar with Iran, but is tasked with being part of the team that needs to quickly get up to speed, and make recommendations to the administration.
In my day job as CEO of a media company not known for covering politics, I am presented with opportunities and options. Without the right person, no project, product, or programming will go from “concept to reality.” That’s a fact. As such, I have to determine whom and what to back and support, either financially or at least with moral support. I must ask questions, consider scenarios and plan for various contingencies. The President of the USA is no different in that regard. When conducting due diligence, no one whom I am asking questions to would cut me off, violently accuse me of ridiculous things as any sane person understands I am trying to educate myself.
Using my own experience to then make a broader point, Iranians who
– are opposed to the current government in Iran, and
– not supportive of the MEK, and
– ergo, monarchists who support the exiled crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi @pahlavireza (hereafter called simply Pahlavi, with no disrespect intended to his supporters or himself),
– are the ones most shocked at the turn of events with MEK’s rising profile,
have a tendency to immediately accuse anyone & everyone of being either
– “controlled opposition,”
– part of NIAC (a lobby who positions itself as championing the cause of Iranian-Americans, but is accused of being [in]directly echoing the positions of the Iranian government), or
– an actual “regimi” (I presume meaning an agent of the regime in Iran).
It should be stated, to be fair to monarchists, that despite the difficulty with which one can ascertain popular backing amongst Iranian opposition leaders, the crown prince certainly has the most support. While some of this has to do with Pahlavi’s consistent and honourable stances going back 45 years, it also has to do with Iran’s own mismanagement since, ie. how can a country with arguably the world’s largest oil and gas reserves be suffering from an energy crisis today?
In other words, it’s not difficult to understand the rising appeal of Pahlavi, which I argue is partly based on his unique profile, but also due to the regime’s own actions. For sure, it’s great that for example literacy and women enrolment in universities has gone up, but what good is that if you’re blinded at best and killed, at worse. In fact, undoubtedly one of the many reasons for the Islamic revolution in Iran was to use religion to put the otherwise smart, assertive & confident Iranian women in a corner and limit their influence in society. Growing up all of the Iranian women (mother’s friends, family) were strong, spoke their mind & were never relegated to the background. They were equals in the relationships and (hate the term) sometimes “wore the pants.” But the revolution changed that; while women go to school and work in certain professions, they’ve effectively been knee-capped. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Back in 1979, Iran was more conservative, religious and older demographically… and I think many men who led the revolution used the Islamic card as a tool to sideline women. So you have this paradox where an otherwise vocal & confident cohort was shoved to the side and back. This is also why so many Iranian women thrive when they left Iran and pursued their lives abroad.
In other words, let’s be real: if Pahlavi is increasingly popular, the regime can only blame themselves.
In any case, the image above is from other accounts online, I myself analyzed many online surveys to determine “What Do Iranians Have Most Convictions About?” before here. While the conclusions do seem to support what monarchist maintain, it’s worth noting that I was attacked for using some sources, even though those sources support their argument!
Unless an Iranian is a thick-skinned masochist (as I am), if they were attacked with such frivolous accusations in such a vahshi manner, they’d never want anything to do with this group. Sadly, Iranians only come in two modes: taarof or tohin. No one sane would want to subject themselves to such asinine and unhelpful purity tests that demonstrate an unrealistic militancy that lacks realism and pragmatism in how things actually work. For example, monarchists say “we demand that the West restore the monarchy,” in the same breath as “we don’t want any foreign intervention,” I cannot help to think and ask (as my wife sometimes asks me incredulously): “de quoi tu parles?” Who restores it? How? I’ve written about the series of events in my Monte Carlo simulation here.
Thus, when the American regime meets and greets the disparate Iranian groups who come and present their vision & options (this would include NUFDI, NIAC’s counter which more vocally criticizes the Iranian government and more openly support Pahlavi), I believe that not knowing Iran’s history and the social intricacies, US politicians are left with the conclusion that the monarchist option is not worth engaging with, because to them, it seems incredulous at best and laughable at worse that someone like Narges Mohammadi (who sits in jail!) is “controlled opposition” – again, I understand what they mean and why they say it, I get it, but an American politician will look at you like you are grasping a straws or outright delusional. Don’t shoot the messenger, I’m telling you it’s going to rain, you can choose to take an umbrella when leaving your house. I may believe in aliens, too, but if in a meeting someone goes on and on about aliens invading planet earth, yeah, I may not seek a follow-up meeting with that person. Just use your aghl, folks.
But Why Does the US Not Support the Crown Prince Then?
Great question, I believe a more subtle reason why no politician supports Pahlavi falls under the CYA doctrine (“Cover Your Ass”) to avoid the #Awkward reality that America played a part in the toppling of Pahlavi’s father, Reza Mohammad Shah, aka Aryamehr (hereafter simply referred to as the Shah), who took in 1941 over Iran as king after the Allied forces disapproved of his father Reza Shah’s rapprochement with Germany during World War II (trying to offset the influence of the USSR and UK, which more or less followed the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turks who had more or less meddled & controlled Iran since Alexander the Great not once but thrice defeated Darius III in the 330s BC). Iran is the most plundered nation in history, due to both its geographic perch as the centre of the ancient world, but also its vast oil resources. It could be argued that the conversion of the British fleet to oil gave it advantages over the German fleet powered by coal, i.e greater range and speed but also, faster refuelling.
In any case, America ultimately played a part in the toppling of the Shah (who despite his own shortcomings was a great patriot who dramatically built on his father’s efforts to modernize Iran) and its 2500-year old monarchy, to make way for the theocratic Islamic Republic, even though it’s a republic in name & its use has tainted the term to Iranians who associate with Iran’s current problems. Iran has incredibly had dynasties outlasting most empires, who average 250 years in duration. Iran is a peculiar Republic in that Khamenei has now ruled Iran for 36 years as Supreme Leader, nearing the Shah’s 38-year reign and more than twice Reza Shah’s 16-year rule. It’s also ironic that while the Mullahs’ objected to the monarchy’s hereditary-based transition system, Khamenei’s successor is likely to be his son, Mojtaba. No further comments, your honor.
In any case, while Iranians blame everyone and anyone including the alliance of the Red & Black (Marxists and Islamists) and most certainly the recently-deceased Jimmy Carter, the stark reality is that even if a Republican POTUS like Richard Nixon been in office in the late 1970s, they would’ve all done the same thing coming out of the Guadalupe conference when the Shah’s fate was sealed.
Blame for our current predicament should also reflect the reality that throughout Iran’s history, external forces that sought to invade and influence tapped into internal discontent, be it amongst nobles, or in Mohammad Mossadegh’s case, previous heirs to the throne, since his mother, Princess Malek Taj Najm-es-Saltaneh, was the granddaughter of the reformist Qajar prince Abbas Mirza. In the battle of Qadisiyah, the commander of the Iranian army, Rostam Farokhzad, described his “enemies” not as foreigners, but the Iranians who followed outsiders and willing to work with foreigners to destabilize whomever was ruling at the time. We are seeing this same dynamic today, with seeming allies whose priorities are not aligned with those of Iranians, but their own.
Similarly, Reza Shah’s fate was sealed (who like all leaders had his flaws, is credited with modernizing Iran and avoiding it being closer to Afghanistan today) when cozying up with the Germans in 1941. In exchange for the Pahlavi dynasty to continue, Reza Shah agreed to step down and the UK installed the Shah, who at 22 was seen as an inexperienced and influenceable twenty-something whom they could control. If you actually look at old video documentaries and archives, watch his body language and hear him in his 20s, the Shah could certainly be seen as someone whom the West believed could do their bidding… though like many, while he was not born a leader, he certainly grew into one. And, as American’s oil appetite grew, by the 1970s (post energy crisis) they viewed the Shah as a “gardan koloft” who had grown confident, assertive, and set to build on his father’s legacy, armed with not only massive energy resources, but the fifth largest army at the time. America went from isolationist to expansionist by WWI, with a foreign policy overtly based on controlling natural resources around the world. To that end, Iran was the prime prize.
Thus, inasmuch as critics asked why the US was fine to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2021-22 when in 2001 they felt that the Taliban could no longer remain in power for housing the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks Osama bin Laden, well, they would be asked why they abandoned and betrayed the Shah in 1979 when in 2025 they feel compelled to support his son (before the tohin comes in: I know why they could also argue why they should support him. I’m just explaining the optics, which matter more in politics than my world of business, where you can more easily switch gears and reverse positions).
Speaking of business – which politics is to some extent – if you think Iran’s ROI on the Axis of Resistance turned out to be zero, then America’s ROI on not just Iraq and Afghanistan but the entire Middle East has been negative, given how Iran went from its main ally to its main foe thanks to their misguided rationale and decision-making. After all, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei had been exiled first to Iraq and then to France but then secured US support to return to Iran on the premise that he and the new regime would not be antipathetic to the US. In the end, he called America the Great Satan. Well played, America. Well played. Dametun gharm.
OK, But Why Support the MEK?
Now granted, this may all explain why the Republicans would hesitate and outright balk to get behind the exiled crown prince (ie Mike Pompeo stood on stage at an MEK event and stated that Iran would “never return to the days of the dictatorship of the Shah”).
As a secular capitalist, the concept of an Islamic-Marxist group like the MEK is not exactly aligned with my principles and worldviews, so hopefully there will not be any aghab mundehs who will now suggest that “areh digheh, Ashkan MEK-hast” and view these as mere observations and explanations for why Republicans are increasingly vocally supporting the MEK as the reasons are simple yet stark. I don’t know how many secular capitalists would support an Islamic Marxist organization, but I digress.
Propped initially through financing from Saddam’s Iraq, today it is housed in Albania and rumoured to receive financial support from certain Arab states. They have a clear leader in Rajavi (even, if again, said leader has zero support inside Iran). They are not only united, but having military capacities (first in Camp Ashraf, and now presumably in Albania), to blood-thirsty hawkish American politicians, they appear like a better horse to back.
Meanwhile, during the discovery stage of a legal dispute between Pahlavi and a former friend/security guard, a testimony from the claimant reveals that somewhere in a CIA file sits how the the organization views Pahlavi:
“A former friend claims that in the 1980s American intelligence approached Reza Pahlavi with a scheme to land a Pahlavi loyalist force in Kish Island under US naval and air support. Allegedly, Reza Pahlavi’s first question was about the exit strategy. None of this inspires confidence on Reza Pahlavi’s boldness and resolution.”
I understand the former friend/security guard who was at the time suing Pahlavi stated this as a criticism, though to me, it shows Pahlavi’s consistency, concern and consideration in wanting to avoid & minimize risk, ie the loss of lives. Critics of Pahlavi point out that he is no revolutionary, which is certainly true.
When Khomeini returned from France to Iran, he was asked what feelings he was experiencing, to which he replied “heech” (nothing); even if Pahlavi were to experience “hamechi” (everything) if he were to return to Iran, it’s unfair to expect him to take that risk until and unless Iran is secure (and this presumes that the regime falls, which is not evident as despite Khamenei’s total rule as Supreme Leader, there is an entire apparatus and organization of clerics and IRGC members who would happily fill that void). This is not like Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu when the fall of one man led to the collapse of the regime. I intended to write an article discussing this analogy that some monarchists make, but feared it would not be… well received and misinterpreted.
Either way, even to the more dovish politicians who do not favour military intervention, the MEK’s ten-point plan – which emphasizes human rights, gender equality, and the abolition of the death penalty – comes across as a better alternative than the regime’s record of oppressing women’s rights, killing more civilians than any other country, and so on. While I do not think that people change, if we shall be intellectually honest, parties do (think how Democrats and Republicans today are unrecognizable to party members a mere 15 years ago). Do not attack me for saying this, but to Americans, their past is perhaps not as pertinent to Republicans as Iranians would hope it would be. After all, this is America: the same Donald Rumsfeld that stood at the podium as President George W. Bush’s defence secretary shook hands with the devil himself a decade before:
Whether we Iranians like it or not, the MEK is an actual organization and seems to be rather good in communications & based on the growing Republican support, diplomacy.
Unlike the monarchist camp where everyone must pledge allegiance and loyalty to Pahlavi and any divergence from the talking points is confronted with tohin, when I alluded to some of the accusations against the MEK after the publication of Rajavi’s op-ed in The Telegraph, I was not attacked by her supporters, but merely contacted to inform me rather diplomatically that they had changed. I am not absolving them of anything, but pointing out that this softer approach makes them more endearing to persuadable and influenceable Iranians who may be opposed to the current regime but then excluded and attacked by monarchists. Fear not, I’m not joining MEK.
In politics, you need to expand the tent. Monarchists make the tent smaller and smaller.
But despite their lack of support amongst Iranians, many seem to be discounting the practical realistic chance they have of being transplanted in Iran as a temporary force for the reasons outlined herein. Indeed, in my previous Monte Carlo simulation about possible future scenarios, I explained:
“MEK & the Clueless American Wild Card
Iranians who oppose the regime are oftentimes heard mentioning an eventual referendum “after the regime falls.” Lost in this is that realistically, that power vacuum will likely give even the most unlikely of belligerents – i.e. the MEK – the ability to seize power, considering it’s organized, armed, and thanks to lobby money, has the perceived (paid) support of influential American politicians like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo, even if internally in Iran, the MEK lacks credibility and support amongst Iranians. What I am saying is not that MEK has any real shot of ruling over time, but in the chaos of a regime falling or transitional period to an eventual referendum, outside foreign forces in Washington DC may back the MEK unknowingly which the Iranians will view as replacing one unsavoury reality for an even less appetizing option. The MEK’s history involves the killing of Iranians, siding with arch-enemy Iraq, etc., but when they publish catchy top 10 lists on their future vision of Iran, it’s not impossible for people like Donald Trump to nod along when the Pence’s and Pompeo’s of the world give them even a smittance of credibility. Again, America does not care about Iran or Iranians, it views Iran as a problem child so it will always pick the lesser of many evils and so on. Now that said, the founder of the MEK Massoud Rajavi is said to be dead since the US took over Iraq (where MEK had set up camp in), and his successor and spouse Maryam Rajavi is struggling with health issues herself. If she passes away, it’s hard to entertain any notion that MEK’s slim already non-existent odds evaporate even more.”
At the time, many Iranians said “impossible, MEK has no support,” once again missing my point. When Bashar Al-Assad fled, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa (aka Abu Mohammad al-Julani), the de facto current leader of Syria as the emir of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) said elections would be forthcoming. Now we’re told they “cannot” be done within four (!) years. Iranians should pay closer attention to how the pieces actually fall and where the cookie crumbles.
To conclude, if the monarchists actually want America and the world to back their beloved crown prince, they need to expand the tent, not close it. They should also not view matters from their lens, but understand how Americans view the world.
Leave a Reply