The regime’s demonic propaganda machinery has distorted pre-revolution history to minimize the role of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and true freedom fighters in the events leading to the overthrow of the Shah dictatorship. They portray them as having had little impact apart from some futile armed actions.

According to this narrative, it was Khomeini (the regime’s founder) who bravely opposed the Shah in 1963, even though it is widely known that Khomeini held reactionary views and opposed women’s suffrage. They claim that it was only Khomeini alone who drew his sword to fight against the Shah and, in 1979, miraculously descended from the sky like Superman and with just one simple order he forced Shah to escape the country, resulting in the people’s rising and revolution.

Now, let’s examine the reality that shines through the speech of Abbas Salimi Namin, a former IRGC officer and current regime propagandist, in an interview with the Jamaran website on July 8, 2023 (five days after the glorious and successful annual Grand Free Iran World Summit 2023 held by the Iranian Resistance).

In addition to his comments about the Shah era, Salimi Namin states, “At that time, the European Union (referring to the Union of Iranian Students in Europe) did not pay any attention to the Imam (Khomeini). They granted intellectual leadership to the Imam but political leadership to the People’s Mojahedin. In terms of practical strategy, we can acknowledge that the People’s Mojahedin were pioneers in this field. However, they pursued their own path rather than the Imam’s. The Imam advocated a purely cultural approach. In private, the Imam had warned them that their armed struggle would only harm themselves.

“But because they saw themselves as pioneers, they believed that if they were not at the helm of the revolutionary pyramid, the revolution would veer off course. They claimed that the militant forces were constantly under the watchful eyes of Savak, Mossad, and the CIA. Naturally, the more secure their organization was, the easier it would be to evade their attacks. They had no faith in the Imam whatsoever.”

Thus, Salimi Namin has acknowledged certain points that ought to be documented in history:

  • The MEK and revolutionary forces served at the forefront of the battle against Shah’s tyranny.
  • Khomeini’s role has been limited to being an intellectual and opportunistic figure behind the masses, without any significant impact.
  • Among student unions abroad, Khomeini did not have any central position nor garnered prominence.
  • The MEK, with their well-structured organizations and resolute nature, have emerged stronger from the challenges they faced.
  • To slow down the movement, Khomeini cautioned the MEK against engaging in armed struggle to avoid their own destruction.
  • The MEK had reservations about Khomeini and lacked belief in his leadership.
  • Their foresight correctly predicted that the revolution would veer off course due to Khomeini’s reactionary stance.

Salimi Namin acknowledges that even after the revolution, when other political factions sought ‘repentance’ and asked Khomeini for ‘forgiveness’, the MEK refused to do so and ‘persisted on their chosen path’. In fact, they not only ‘remained steadfast’ but also adopted a much more ‘intricate approach’, which ultimately ‘ensured their survival and resilience.’

But the important part of his speech lies in his analysis of the current state of the MEK, and the unveiling of the political influence wielded by the Iranian Resistance within the existing power dynamics. His words shed light on the true situation and the significant weight carried by viable alternatives to the regime.

Salimi Namin argues against those who claim the MEK are facing imminent destruction in Albania. He emphasizes that they are resilient and adaptable, capable of changing their methods to overcome challenges.

He added: “Will the market for these [the MEK] go away? This notion is entirely false. Once again, the People’s Mojahedin will continue to have a presence. Even the Europeans themselves acknowledge that it is the strongest organization opposing the Iranian regime.

“In contrast, how much influence do the monarchy supporters have? They were able to gather several thousand individuals in Albania. Mobilizing and managing such a sizeable group requires a certain level of power. There is no revolt within their organization. There is no objection or protest within their organization. This poses a dangerous phenomenon, surpassing mere cultist or mercenary activities. It represents an entirely new and significant challenge. Regrettably, we have seriously underestimated the gravity of this matter.”

Indeed, through each line of Salimi Namin’s speeches, he exposes the regime’s failure in eradicating its primary opposition and highlights the MEK’s correct path, their present prosperity, and remarkable growth to the point of being considered a ‘new phenomenon.’