MEK members made up the vast majority of the approximately 30,000 political prisoners executed during the 1988 massacre. Despite this attempted extermination, the organization survived and continued to grow.
By Carla SANDS
In the wake of the military conflict between Iran and the United States, the Iranian nation itself finds itself at a historic crossroads. The death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the total impact of the 40-day war have left the religious dictatorship in a more fragile position than at any other time in its history. However, the regime’s weakness did not begin with recent events. For years, it has been eroded by deepening international isolation, economic collapse, and repeated nationwide uprisings supported by an increasingly organized opposition movement. For 47 years, Western powers have oscillated between appeasement and confrontation in their approach to Iran. The former has consistently encouraged Tehran’s aggression, while the latter has demonstrated its clear limitations.
When the Shah’s dictatorship fell in 1979, the world saw the Iranian people’s ability to bring about change. However, that opportunity was quickly seized upon by an Islamist faction led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Because of its medieval worldview, incompetence, and lack of mercy, that regime never gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people. From the beginning, activists and dissidents resisted the new regime. No organization played a more enduring role in that resistance than the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK). After contributing to the overthrow of the Shah, the MEK refused to support the constitution that institutionalized clerical rule. As a result, it became the regime’s primary target.
MEK members made up the vast majority of the estimated 30,000 political prisoners executed during the 1988 massacre. Despite this attempted extermination, the organization survived and continued to grow. Even today, its members remain among the main targets of the regime’s new wave of executions. In recent weeks, of the 25 dissidents executed, eight were MEK members. This increase speaks to the regime’s increasing support for repression – in the face of growing domestic pressure. In protest of the wave of executions, 100,000 people will participate in a rally on June 20 in Paris, calling for a halt to the executions and in support of a democratic republic.
Politically, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has gained increasing prominence. Its elected president, Maryam Rajavi, presents a clear vision for Iran’s future through a ten-point plan that calls for a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic. The coalition’s credibility was significantly strengthened in 2002, when it revealed key elements of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program. In parallel, since 2012, the MEK has developed a vast network of “resistance units” inside Iran. They played a crucial role in organizing and sustaining the nationwide uprisings that began in 2017.
Recent events further underscore this point. Shortly before the start of the war, on February 28, MEK fighters launched an attack on the regime’s leadership complex—in the heart of Tehran. The attack highlighted the existence of a battle-tested and combat-ready force capable of challenging the regime from within. Following these developments, the NCRI announced the creation of an interim government to lead Iran toward a democratic transition—once regime change is achieved. This force, supported by widespread popular discontent, represents a possible path to a post-regime future.
The United States and the broader international community must recognize and support the forces inside Iran. The way forward is neither a return to monarchy nor reliance on foreign military intervention. Change must come from within, from the Iranian people. The Iranian people, and the organized opposition that has stood by them for decades, are the only actors capable of establishing and defending a true democracy. This is especially important given the efforts to rehabilitate the monarchy. The Shah was widely condemned for the repression and one-party rule of his regime. However, his son, Reza Pahlavi, has used his growing presence in the media to defend that shameful legacy.
Western powers should lead in recognizing the legitimacy of the NCRI and its proposed framework for transition. While regime change may not have been the explicit objective of recent military actions, developments in recent months have made it clear that it is the only possible solution to the crisis. Supporting the NCRI is not an act of intervention. It is consistent with the will of the Iranian people and with the principles of democracy that the West defends. It is also a strategic imperative. A democratic, non-nuclear Iran would not only end decades of domestic repression, but would also fundamentally change the security landscape in the Middle East.
(The author is a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark and a former member of President Donald Trump’s Economic Advisory Council )