The Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization of Iran (commonly referred to as the “Cult of Rajavi”) has remained a controversial fixture in U.S. Iran policy for decades. While some American hawks have used the group as leverage against the Islamic Republic, a growing wave of criticism from U.S. officials, analysts, and institutions has called into question its legitimacy and the risks associated with its support. This article draws on critical American perspectives to analyze the nature of the group, its lack of credibility, and the dangers it poses to U.S. foreign policy.
A Dark History: Terrorism and Violence in the Group’s Past
Already designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, the MEK is notorious for its involvement in the killing of American citizens in Iran in the 1970s. This legacy continues to tarnish its public image. Former US Ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter cited this bloody past to support the group’s rebranding as a terrorist organization, calling it inherently unreliable.
The US Official Rejection of the MEK
In November 2022, the US State Department officially stated that it did not recognize the MEK as a legitimate representative of the Iranian people or as a democratic movement. Then-spokesman Ned Price reinforced this position, stating that “Washington does not view the group as a credible or representative force for the Iranian people.” The motivation is clear: the group’s collaboration with Saddam Hussein, its cult-like internal structure, and serious allegations of human rights abuses.
Political Support or Corruption? The Lobby Machine
One of the most controversial aspects of the MEK is its heavy spending on political lobbying in Washington. The group reportedly paid millions of dollars to high-profile figures such as Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo in exchange for their public support of MEK events. Critics argue that this is not legitimate political support, but evidence of systemic corruption and a blatant attempt to buy political influence.
Saddam, Betrayal, and Lack of Public Support
Perhaps the most serious stain on the MEK’s record is its direct military cooperation with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Viewed by many Iranians as an act of national treason, this collaboration has stripped the MEK of any remaining popular legitimacy, both within Iran and among the global Iranian diaspora. The group’s deep dependence on the Baathist regime for funding and intelligence underscores its agenda of alignment abroad and alienation from the Iranian people.
A Cult Masquerading as a Political Movement
Reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch, along with testimonies from former members, describe a closed, cult-like structure characterized by psychological manipulation, suppression of dissent, and forced obedience. These characteristics not only prevent the group from being considered democratic, but also present it as an authoritarian entity that poses risks to political integrity and civil liberties.
Washington Divisions: Strategic Tool or Political Embarrassment?
Support for the MEK is largely limited to hard-line Republican circles, including figures such as John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and recently Mike Pence. In contrast, progressive Democrats, including Barbara Lee, have consistently opposed supporting groups such as the MEK. This partisan divide reflects the lack of consensus in Washington and underscores growing unease about the long-term implications of supporting a group with such a deeply tainted history.
Conclusion: Is Supporting the MEK a Strategic Mistake?
Supporting a group that contradicts democratic principles—and has a history of terrorism, national betrayal, and human rights abuses—provides the United States with neither strategic advantage nor moral legitimacy. For many of its supporters in Washington, the motivation appears to be rooted more in political opportunism and financial gain than in genuine concern for the Iranian people.
Indeed, the growing chorus of criticism from US institutions and thought leaders signals a sharp decline in the MEK’s influence among American decision-makers. In the long run, continued support for this group is unlikely to serve US interests and may instead tarnish Washington’s reputation as a champion of democratic values.
Geopolitical Russia – Pouria Tajali – Translation: Costantino Ceoldo