The Heavy Shadow of the Mujahedin-e Khalq on Iran’s Protests: A Real Threat or a Dangerous Game of Foreign Politics?

Analysts have warned about the heavy shadow of the Mujahedin-e Khalq and age-old dangers at the heart of Iran’s new protests, coinciding with people’s calls for the return of the Pahlavi dynasty.

In the midst of widespread protests across Iran, alongside the people’s economic and freedom-seeking demands, discussions about the role and influence of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) have once again become a serious and alarming issue; a group whose history has been marked by bloody ups and downs and ethical questions, and is now being presented among certain political figures and analysts as a hidden danger to Iran’s future.

The Mujahedin-e Khalq organization has played a highly controversial role in Iran’s political history over past decades. This group, which initially operated against the Pahlavi regime, became engaged in a bloody conflict with the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, and in the 1980s even fought alongside Saddam Hussein’s regime against Iran—an act that intensified public hostility toward the group and resulted in a severe decline in its legitimacy among Iranians.

One of the darkest chapters in this organization’s history involves armed attacks and deadly bombings attributed to it in past years, including the assassination of General Ali Sayad Shirazi in 1999, for which the MEK has been held responsible.

These records have led many analysts, following the warning by “Yasmin Ansari,” an Iranian-born U.S. Congress representative, regarding this group and significant portions of Iranian society, to harbor deep doubts about the possible role of this organization in Iran’s political future—even if they agree with the people’s protests and demands—and to consider it dangerous to national unity and interests.

Meanwhile, the Iranian government and media outlets close to it have repeatedly accused the Mujahedin-e Khalq of planning and taking action against the people and national security, including allegations about attacks on civilian infrastructure and connections with foreign groups seeking to push protests toward violent paths.

Recently, two members affiliated with this group were executed in Iran on charges of “operations against urban infrastructure,” although such accusations have faced widespread criticism from human rights organizations.

These historical precedents and concerns have led many Iranians, particularly youth, to seek the return of a different form of leadership for the country—that of Prince Reza Pahlavi, the last crown prince of Iran’s dissolved monarchy, who is viewed by some segments of society as a figure with a record of compassion for Iran and without the historical burden of violence.

From the perspective of its supporters, this tendency represents not merely a return to the past, but rather the search for a model of peaceful and nationalist leadership that can enable passage through the current crisis while preserving social cohesion and security.

Ultimately, while the precise and actual role of the Mujahedin-e Khalq in current protests cannot be independently assessed, the bitter historical experience and record of collaboration with Iran’s enemies continue to cause a significant portion of society to issue strong warnings against the presence and influence of this group in the country’s future developments—warnings that, alongside people’s demands for systemic change, seek to prevent the reproduction of patterns that have led to violence and instability.