The Unpopularity of the People's Mojahedin (MEK) and Its Impact on the Legitimacy of Opposition Against the Regime in Iran

The People's Mojahedin of Iran (MEK) has long been a controversial organization within the Iranian opposition. Despite its efforts to present itself as a democratic alternative to the current regime, the group is met with deep mistrust and rejection by the majority of the Iranian population. This stems not only from its history but also from its reliance on foreign powers, which further undermines its legitimacy.

The MEK has isolated itself through its actions over the past decades. Its collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War is widely regarded by Iranians as a betrayal, as this conflict represents one of the most traumatic chapters in the country’s modern history.

Additionally, the MEK’s terrorist activities, including the assassination of Iranian civilians and US officials before and after the 1979 revolution, have significantly damaged its credibility. Its origins in a mix of Shiite Islamism and Marxist ideology further alienate it from a population increasingly seeking secularism and democracy. For many Iranians, the MEK is associated with the very ideologies they aim to reject.

Another obstacle for the MEK is its close ties to foreign powers, particularly the United States. While this support is intended to strategically pressure the Iranian regime, many Iranians perceive it as evidence of the MEK being a tool of foreign agendas. This perception further distances the group from being seen as a legitimate representative of Iranian interests.

The Challenge for Keith Kellogg and Other Supporters
In this context, the participation of figures like Keith Kellogg, former national security advisor to the Trump administration, in MEK events appears problematic. While such support may be intended as a symbolic gesture to increase pressure on the Iranian regime, it raises the question of its effectiveness. Without the backing of the Iranian people, the MEK remains politically irrelevant within the country.

For someone like Kellogg, the challenge lies in bridging the deep divide between the MEK and the Iranian people – a task that seems nearly impossible given the organization’s historical and political baggage.

The Alternative: Supporting Credible Opposition Movements

Instead of backing an organization like the MEK, which is overwhelmingly unpopular in Iranian society, international actors should focus on grassroots movements within Iran. Movements that truly represent the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and human rights would be far more effective. Such movements not only have greater credibility but also the necessary public support to drive meaningful political change.

Foreign politicians’ support for the MEK may offer short-term tactical advantages, but in the long run, it contributes to the alienation between the Iranian people and external actors. Those who truly want to stand with the Iranian people must take their rejection of the MEK seriously and focus on promoting groups that enjoy genuine support within the country. Only in this way can a credible and sustainable transformation in Iran be achieved.

#Iran