In an opinion piece published by La Tribune Dimanche, European law specialist Jean-Pierre Spitzer examines how political considerations influenced the designation of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) as a terrorist organization, arguing that Western governments must acknowledge the right of the Iranian people to resist oppression.
European governments must acknowledge the right of the Iranian people to resist dictatorship and reconsider the political decisions that once undermined their organized opposition. This is the central argument of Jean-Pierre Spitzer, a European law specialist who has revisited the controversial designation of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) as a terrorist organization and its eventual removal from European terrorist lists.
In an opinion article published on November 4, 2026, by the French newspaper La Tribune Dimanche, Spitzer draws on recent remarks by Marc Trévidic, a prominent French anti-terrorism judge, who discussed the political considerations surrounding the legal treatment of the Iranian opposition movement.
Trévidic’s observations raise a fundamental question: when does the designation of an organization as terrorist cease to reflect a consistent legal assessment and instead become an instrument serving the interests of the dictatorship it opposes?
Political considerations behind the PMOI’s terrorist designation
Spitzer, who spent nearly a decade working with the legal team challenging the PMOI’s inclusion on European terrorist lists, argues that the case exposed the vulnerability of judicial decisions to political pressure.
The legal proceedings ultimately resulted in the removal of the PMOI from European terrorist lists. However, according to Spitzer, the controversy was never merely an administrative or technical dispute. It concerned the fundamental right of people facing persecution to resist oppression through legitimate means.
Recalling Trévidic’s account, Spitzer points to a period when France was seeking to expand its commercial and diplomatic relations with Tehran. During that period, Iranian opposition members who had previously been recognized as political refugees suddenly found themselves treated as suspects.
The case demonstrated how diplomatic calculations could undermine democratic principles, even in countries whose political systems formally guarantee judicial independence.
Spitzer argues that the experience raised serious questions about whether Western governments had allowed their relations with Iran’s regime to influence their treatment of the opposition.
Marc Trévidic challenges the simplistic equation of resistance with terrorism
One of the most significant aspects of Trévidic’s recent remarks concerned the PMOI’s armed struggle against Iran’s regime.
As Spitzer recounts, Trévidic acknowledged that the organization had fought the regime’s brutal repression and possessed substantial military capabilities at the time. Its targets included senior military officials and individuals directly associated with torture, repression, and the machinery of state violence.
Trévidic also suggested that these capabilities might have proved useful today in efforts to overthrow Iran’s regime. He further pointed to the role of France, the United States, and Britain in eliminating those capabilities.
For Spitzer, the significance of these observations lies particularly in their source. They came from a judge with extensive experience in counterterrorism investigations, rather than from an activist or an advocate of the Iranian opposition.
The remarks challenge the simplistic narrative that resistance to dictatorship can automatically be equated with terrorism, without examining the political circumstances, objectives, and nature of the actions involved.
They also expose a longstanding contradiction in Western policy: governments recognized the brutality of Iran’s ruling establishment while simultaneously weakening one of the organized forces confronting it.
The PMOI remains at the forefront of the struggle for a democratic Iran
Despite years of political setbacks and what Spitzer describes as Western diplomatic concessions to Tehran, he maintains that the PMOI continues to play a leading role in the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and a democratic republic.
The human cost of this confrontation remains severe. Spitzer points to the execution of numerous PMOI members in recent months, the death sentences facing many others, and the imprisonment of thousands of the organization’s supporters, who also face the threat of execution.
These developments underscore the regime’s determination to eliminate organized opposition through executions, imprisonment, and intimidation.
For Spitzer, the continuing repression makes the question of the right to resist particularly urgent. Western governments, he argues, have a moral responsibility to recognize the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny rather than repeat the political mistakes of the past.
A question of democratic principles, not merely a legal dispute
Spitzer emphasizes that the eventual removal of the PMOI from European terrorist lists did not automatically undo the damage caused by years of stigmatization. Judicial victories can correct unlawful decisions, but they cannot immediately erase the political consequences or public perceptions created by years of negative portrayals.
The case therefore carries lessons extending beyond the Iranian opposition. It concerns the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, and the responsibility of democratic governments to ensure that foreign-policy interests do not determine fundamental questions of justice.
For Spitzer, the experience of defending the PMOI before European courts was ultimately about protecting a much broader democratic principle: the right of oppressed peoples to resist dictatorship.
His conclusion is particularly relevant as Iran undergoes profound political upheaval. Western governments must learn from their past decisions and recognize the role of organized resistance in the struggle to establish a democratic republic in Iran.
As the title of Spitzer’s September 2026 memoir, Une belle affaire ? Non, une grande cause (A Good Case? No, a Great Cause), suggests, the defense of the PMOI was never simply a legal battle. It was, and remains, a matter of principle.