Announcement of an interim government in the shadow of war; the return of a controversial force with a record full of contradictions

The claim of forming a provisional government by the People's Mujahedin Organization in the shadow of the war has sparked a controversial and controversial reaction.

At the same time as the military conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran began, the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" in a controversial move announced the formation of an "interim government" to transfer sovereignty to the Iranian people and establish a democratic republic; an announcement that not only met with mixed reactions, but also once again drew attention to the past and performance of one of the most controversial opposition groups to the Islamic Republic.

Formed in the 1980s as a coalition of exiled opposition forces, the council quickly became the political arm of the People’s Mojahedin Organization (MEK), a group that has had a turbulent history in Iranian politics since its inception. It is now led by Maryam Rajavi, a figure who has spent years trying to present the group as an alternative for Iran’s future.

The announcement of the formation of the “interim government” came at a time when specific details of its composition, structure, and social support have not yet been provided. In a statement issued by the organization, it was emphasized that the basis of this plan is Maryam Rajavi’s ten-point program; a program that emphasizes the creation of a secular, democratic, and gender-equal system. However, the lack of transparency regarding how these goals will be achieved has led many analysts to evaluate the announcement as more of a propaganda move in a wartime atmosphere than an implementable operational plan.

At the same time, the group's stance on the recent war has also been marked by a degree of caution. While some opposition figures have explicitly supported military action against the Islamic Republic, the MEK has tried to maintain its focus on accusing the Iranian government of being the "root cause" of the crisis, without directly supporting foreign attacks.

However, the group's most important challenge lies not in its current positions but in its past, a past that continues to cast a heavy shadow over its credibility and social acceptability. One of the most controversial chapters in this record is the MEK's cooperation with Saddam Hussein's government during the Iran-Iraq War. By establishing itself on Iraqi soil and participating in military operations at that time, the group effectively sided with a government that was at war with Iran, an action that many Iranians have seen as siding with the enemy during the war.

Critics emphasize that this cooperation, especially in a situation where Iranian cities were targeted by military attacks, meant practical support for a structure that led to the killing of Iranian citizens; an issue that remains one of the main reasons for widespread distrust of this organization.

In addition, the internal structure of the MEK has also been subject to criticism. Numerous reports from splinter groups and independent institutions have accused the organization of having “cult-like” characteristics, including severe restrictions on members’ personal lives, ideological controls, and even the imposition of a specific lifestyle. These are in clear contradiction to its declared slogans of freedom and democracy.

Alongside this controversial political record, one of the darkest and most controversial parts of the MEK case relates to the internal structure of the organization and its treatment of members, especially women; an issue that has been criticized for years by defectors and some sources.

According to these reports, during what was called an “ideological revolution,” members of the organization were forced to divorce their wives and family ties were virtually destroyed. A structure was then formed in which, critics said, “all women must consider themselves within Rajavi’s sphere of influence,” a proposition that clearly indicates an extreme concentration of power at the top of the organization.

Revelations from some former members also indicate that meetings were held under the title of “liberation dances”; meetings in which, according to these individuals, conventional moral and human boundaries were violated and relationships were formed under organizational and ideological control. Although these narratives have been denied by the organization, they remain one of the main axes of criticism against the group.

In such a framework, the issue is not just political disagreement, but also raises more serious questions about the internal nature of this organization: "Can a group accused of tightly controlling the private lives of its members, imposing forced divorces, and creating opaque and controversial relationships claim to be free, democratic, and leading a society?"

Critics believe that even if some of these reports are true, they indicate a deep gap between the organization's declared slogans and its internal realities; a gap that seriously questions the legitimacy of any political claim.

On the other hand, such performance shows that a group that exercises this level of control and violation of individual freedoms does not have the authority to lead and claim to transfer power to the Iranian people.

Politically, the group is virtually isolated among the Iranian opposition. Many opposition movements to the Islamic Republic, both at home and abroad, are reluctant to cooperate with the MEK. Even among anti-government forces, there is strong criticism of the organization's historical performance and approaches.

However, the MEK has managed to build a network of contacts and lobbying in the international arena. The presence of Western political figures at the group’s meetings and the support of some politicians, particularly in the United States, indicate their continued efforts to gain legitimacy on a global level; although this support does not necessarily translate into widespread acceptance among Iranians.

Ultimately, the announcement of the formation of an “interim government” in the midst of war is more a reflection of the competition among the various opposition movements to present themselves in a crisis situation than a real shift in the political balance. But the reality is that without broad social support and without a clear accountability for the past, any claim to Iran’s future leadership will face serious doubts.