Khomeini, Iran regime’s founder and now Ali Khamenei the regime’s supreme leader attempted to eradicate the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) from Iran’s political landscape using a vast and extensive security and intelligence apparatus, as well as repressive structures.

This elimination was carried out with utmost brutality, employing the most violent methods. They resorted to various forms of torture and death, ranging from killings at the point of arrest, confining individuals in cages, and even placing them in coffins. These acts were so brutal that Hussein-Ali Montazeri Khomeini’s successor once sent the following message to regime officials:

“The Mojahedin represents a way of thinking and understanding. Logic is their language, and flawed logic should be met with sound logic. Killing does not resolve the issue; it only exacerbates it.”

When the physical eradication of the Mojahedin failed or rather had the opposite effect, alternative methods were employed, such as deceit, demonization, and psychological warfare. Strategies like bombing the shrine of Imam Reza and murdering Christian priests, falsely attributing these acts to the Mojahedin, were employed.

The members of the MEK were depicted as heartless and anti the culture of family, labeled the fifth column of Iraq, and accused of perpetrating the killings of Kurds. This smear campaign against the MEK extended beyond Iran’s borders. Furthermore, Iran’s national funds were used to include the Mojahedin in terrorist blacklists, serving as part of these efforts.

Continuing with the demonization agenda, we now encounter rumors such as: “The Mojahedin have no support or popularity within Iran!” and “The Islamic Republic regime has no alternative!” More recently, allegations of “cyber-crimes committed by the Mojahedin in Albania” have emerged. The questions raised from these rumors are: Where do these lies originate? Who propagates and benefits from these deceitful tactics?

The Free Iran Global Summit 2023 featured speakers who shed light on various aspects of this issue, providing valuable insights that can help unveil the truth behind much demonization surrounding Iran’s resistance. By examining their mentions and explanations, we can gain a deeper understanding of the situation.

In his speech, former MEP Struan Stevenson mentioned a member of the European Parliament named Eldar Mamedov. He stated that during his 15 years in the European Parliament, Mamedov consistently opposed resolutions and decisions against the Iranian regime and in support of the Iranian resistance. Stevenson expressed his belief that Mamedov was receiving financial support from the regime, and he had suspected this even during his time in parliament. According to Stevenson, a recent judicial investigation confirmed these suspicions, leading to Mamedov’s arrest and imprisonment on charges of being a mercenary for the regime.

During his speech, Mr. Stevenson said that Eldar Mamedov consistently aligned himself with the Iranian regime in opposing the MEK in various countries. According to Stevenson, Mamedov’s support for the regime was motivated by financial interests, particularly in cases involving oil contracts or the auctioning of Iran’s national assets.

Stevenson further mentioned that there was an individual, presumably connected to the regime, who consistently spread negative propaganda against the Mojahedin in Albania. However, when Albania refused to expel this individual and the regime did not accept him, the person’s mother complained. She questioned why her son, who had disseminated false information against the MEK in Albania to benefit the regime, was not allowed to enter Iran.

Candice Bergen, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, highlighted another aspect of the policy of appeasement and demonization. She expressed her disappointment with the appeasement policy adopted by some Western governments.

Bergen shared her shock at the negative propaganda that targeted her after expressing support for the Iranian resistance. As a member of parliament, she found it disheartening that such propaganda was directed toward her simply because she stood in solidarity with the Iranian resistance. This experience made her realize the extent to which lies were being spread against this resistance movement.

Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, aligns with Ms. Candice Bergen’s perspective regarding the baseless lies surrounding the MEK. He expressed that there had been continuous warnings against engaging with this group, labeling them as terrorists, Marxists, and sectarian. However, upon closer examination and thorough study, Bloomfield realized that all these accusations were fabricated falsehoods. His firsthand investigation led him to conclude that the negative portrayal of the Mojahedin was unjust and built on unfounded claims.

Former US White House Director for Public Liaison Linda Chavez shares a similar sentiment to Candace Bergen regarding the purpose of demonization. Chavez raises the question of why we should place trust in a regime that has consistently been dishonest. She highlights the existence of a real alternative in Iran.

According to Chavez, the regime’s strategy of demonizing the Iranian resistance serves the purpose of alienating the people from this opposition force. The regime aims to prevent the people, who have come to understand that the regime will not address their problems, from aligning themselves with the alternative presented by the Iranian resistance.

Former US Justice Minister Michael Mukasey referred to the inclusion of the Mojahedin in the terrorist lists of the US and Europe as a “political decision.” He acknowledges that this decision was a result of appeasement with religious fascism, implying that political motivations influenced the designation.

Mukasey shared his personal experience, recounting how he was informed that he could not participate in the gathering of the Iranian resistance in Paris due to their inclusion on the terrorist list. Intrigued by this restriction, he conducted his own research and discovered that the decision to label the Mojahedin as terrorists was made in 1997. Mukasey asserts that this decision was political in nature and did not align with legal principles or regulations.

Louis Freeh, the former head of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), shares the belief that there is little distinction between the Iranian regime and other governments that engage in spreading falsehoods about their adversaries.

Freeh recalled the scrutiny faced by the residents of Ashraf by the US government and its intelligence agencies, highlighting that no evidence or indications of their involvement in terrorism were discovered. This experience led him to expose a common deceptive tactic:

Those who propagate false information are aware that they need to repetitively assert these lies to make them appear credible, and the regime employs the same strategy.

By shedding light on this manipulative approach, Freeh suggests that the regime, along with other governments, employs a deliberate strategy of persistent repetition to solidify false narratives.

Steve McCabe, member of the UK House of Commons, addresses another dimension of demonization employed by appeasers, which is often overlooked due to its complexity. He emphasizes that everything the Iranian regime asserts is a falsehood, as they are essentially a group of lawless gangsters who disregard any principles. The regime invests significant resources in spreading lies.

To propagate falsehoods against the Mojahedin, the regime utilizes individuals who present themselves as ordinary citizens, such as Iranians residing in England. However, these individuals are agents of the regime. They attempt to position themselves as critics of the regime, but their language, expressions, and cultural cues align closely with those of the regime itself. By paying close attention, it becomes possible to identify their true allegiance and discern their role in perpetuating the regime’s lies.

McCabe highlights an intriguing observation about the influence of religious fascism’s propaganda on various factions within European countries, including both the left and right-wing. He mentions that not only was he subjected to accusations from left-wing factions in England, but even right-wing publications accused him of supporting terrorists. However, it later became apparent that even these right-wing publications had been influenced by the propaganda disseminated by the Iranian regime.

This underscores the far-reaching impact of the regime’s deceptive tactics, as they have managed to sway opinions and shape narratives across the political spectrum. McCabe’s experience serves as a reminder of the pervasive nature of the regime’s propaganda and its ability to manipulate public perception, transcending political affiliations.

The statements provided indeed suggest that the primary source and propagator of falsehoods against the MEK is the intelligence-security apparatus of religious fascism. When the interests of those who advocate appeasement policies align with those of religious fascism, they perpetuate and endorse these lies to undermine the democratic alternative. However, it is worth noting that the vigilance and integrity of the resistance have consistently thwarted their efforts, leading to their repeated failures and embarrassment.