By The Jerusalem Post (World News) | Created at 2025-01-01 02:45:07 | Updated at 2025-01-03 23:50:54
2 days ago
A democratic Iran is not only the aspiration of its people but also a strategic necessity for the international community.
By AIDIN PANAHI JANUARY 1, 2025 04:16
A WOMAN stands next to a poster of Persian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi and the pre-revolution flag of Iran bearing the lion and the sun, during a protest in Munich.
(photo credit: Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters)
The fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and its ripple effects on Iran’s future have reignited debates about the role of opposition groups in shaping a post-regime Iran.
Among the groups competing for influence, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, known as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has long been a controversial player. Despite its claims to represent Iranian resistance, the MEK’s history and current standing reveal why it has no place among the people of Iran.
Founded in 1965, MEK initially emerged as a radical group opposing the monarchy of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Combining Marxist and Islamist ideologies, MEK was responsible for violent attacks during the 1970s, including the assassination of US military personnel and contractors in Iran. Following the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, MEK found itself at odds with Ayatollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic, leading to armed confrontations and the exile of its leadership.
In the 1980s, MEK aligned with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. This alliance led to joint attacks on Iran, resulting in the deaths of many, including innocent civilians. MEK’s actions during this period cemented its image as a traitorous and terrorist organization.
The US Department of State designated MEK as a terrorist organization in 1997, citing its violent past. Similarly, the European Union included MEK on its list of terrorist organizations in 2002.
However, in the 2000s, MEK claimed to renounce violence and undertook lobbying efforts to rehabilitate its image. By 2009, the EU removed MEK from its terrorist list, and the US followed suit in 2012. These decisions were driven largely by geopolitical considerations and logistical challenges in relocating MEK members from Iraq to Albania with United Nations support.
Despite its rebranding efforts, MEK remains deeply unpopular among Iranians, widely despised for its collaboration with Saddam Hussein and its ideological extremism. Its lack of grassroots support and cult-like practices further undermine its claim to represent the resistance.
Beyond groups like MEK, certain lobbyists and journalists in the West falsely present themselves as part of the opposition, while actively discouraging full regime change.
Instead, they promote superficial reforms that seek to preserve the regime’s core power structures under the guise of progress. These narratives often narrow their focus to specific issues, such as gender apartheid or hijab enforcement, portraying them as central problems. While significant, this approach ignores the broader systemic crises – political, economic, and social – that demand comprehensive solutions.
Prioritizing symbolic gestures over systemic reform is evident in the elevation of figures focused on media-friendly campaigns, for example, unveiling hijabs, while neglecting deeper structural crises in Iran. At the same time, figures operating within Iran, such as Narges Mohammadi, bring attention to human rights abuses but face criticism for their connections to Islamist-Marxist ideologies and ties to the reformist oligarchy.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
While Mohammadi has drawn international recognition, including the Nobel Peace Prize, many Iranians inside the country reject these same forces, seeking a complete break from the Islamic Republic and its systemic failures. Mohammadi’s husband’s public support for Sharia law and antisemitic rhetoric further complicate perceptions of her commitment to the secular, democratic future most Iranians desire. While Mohammadi’s advocacy has drawn international recognition, this does not make her the leader Iranians are seeking.
The people of Iran overwhelmingly desire leadership that embodies unity, secularism, and a clear vision for a democratic future. The promotion of such figures by the West risks overshadowing genuine leaders and movements advocating for systemic change. Iran does not need a manufactured leader akin to Ahmad Chalabi; it needs representatives who genuinely reflect the will of its people.
A democratic Iran is not only the aspiration of its people but also a strategic necessity for the international community.
A free Iran would transform the Middle East, fostering regional stability, reducing terrorism, and ensuring secure energy supplies for the global market. The West must carefully evaluate whom it elevates as representative voices, ensuring they align with the people’s genuine aspirations, rather than perpetuating reformist narratives that fall short of meaningful change.
The most credible leader for non-regime Iran
CROWN PRINCE Reza Pahlavi stands out as the most credible leader capable of representing the aspirations of Iranians. He has publicly stated his readiness to lead Iran’s transition, emphasizing unity, secular governance, and non-violent resistance. He emphasized, during the Israeli-American Council (IAC) 2024 Summit, “Iran’s opposition is not asking the West to overthrow the regime on our behalf. We are asking for partnership with democratic nations to support the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom.”
Pahlavi’s principled stance on non-violent resistance, respect for territorial integrity, and commitment to human rights has earned him significant respect within Iran and among its diaspora.
He has also emphasized that a free Iran would not only strengthen its partnership with Israel but ensure peace with its neighbors and the West, including the United States. Pahlavi’s leadership is not just a unifying force for the Iranian opposition – it aligns directly with the strategic interests of the US and Israel, ensuring a stable and democratic future for the region. Supporting such a vision empowers the Iranian people and also enhances global security by eliminating a key state sponsor of terrorism.
As discussions about regime change in Iran continue, maximum pressure on the regime and maximum support for the Iranian people must guide the approach. The regime is likely to capitalize on the possible death of Khamenei by implementing a transformation project designed to appear as reform while negotiating with the West to buy time and maintain power. Such tactics, coupled with superficial gestures, have been used by the regime for decades to forestall genuine change.
There is no time for compromise or negotiation with this regime – it must go.
The writer is an Iranian-American research professor and energy expert, political and human rights activist, organizer of joint events between Iranian and Jewish communities in Massachusetts, and leading From Boston To Iran Group alongside other fellow activists.
