MEK’s New Project in Its Primary Political Hub: An Analysis

The terrorist MEK organization, formally known as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), has played a controversial role in the political arena related to Iran. Over the years, this organization has orchestrated various campaigns to destabilize the Iranian government and attract the support of international powers. The latest efforts of the MEK, after its previous project failures in France and Albania, have shifted to Berlin. There, the group apparently intends to hold a "human rights" meeting. However, analysts suggest that this project is an attempt to exert further pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran by using dubious information about the country’s nuclear facilities — information that has often misled prominent officials of hostile states. For instance, in the past, Netanyahu claimed in the UN General Assembly that Iran was building a nuclear bomb at a specific location on a map he provided, only for journalists to later reveal that the site was actually a carpet-cleaning shop. This incident became an international media punchline for months.

The MEK was founded in the 1960s to oppose the Pahlavi regime in Iran, but after the 1979 revolution, it quickly turned against the Islamic Republic. Over the years, the organization has used various tactics, such as armed conflicts, assassinations, and propaganda campaigns, to oppose the Iranian government. The MEK has consistently sought to align itself with international powers opposed to Iran. Particularly, its cooperation with Trump’s administration showed the group’s desire to find effective allies to strengthen its goals against Iran.

During Trump’s presidency, the MEK received substantial support for its anti-Iranian agenda. The group imagined it was approaching its goals with Trump’s "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. However, the shift in U.S. policies under Biden’s administration, along with a renewed diplomatic approach to Iran, has created a challenging environment for the MEK. With decreasing support, the MEK leaders now feel threatened and have turned to alternative methods to regain attention and legitimacy.

Reports indicate that the MEK plans to organize a meeting in Berlin under the guise of a human rights conference. They aim to invite retired and "rented" politicians to create a display of human rights advocacy, even though, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, the group has not upheld even basic rights among its own members. Nevertheless, through this performance, they hope to capitalize on Europe's political climate, which is particularly sensitive to human rights issues and nuclear non-proliferation.

The primary goal of the Berlin meeting is to reignite international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program by making claims about secret nuclear facilities. According to reports, the MEK plans to present a list of supposed nuclear sites in Iran, claiming these locations are being used for clandestine nuclear development. However, in previous claims, their designated locations were found to have no connection to nuclear programs; one such case led journalists to a carpet-cleaning shop instead of a nuclear site. Ultimately, the main objective of releasing this information is to portray the MEK as active, thereby boosting its popularity and securing funding from Western governments. In recent years, support for the MEK has plummeted, and the group’s members in Albania and France have faced police raids and seizures of their assets, assets allegedly used for executing terrorist activities in Iran.

Focusing on the nuclear issue enables the MEK to attract the attention of the U.S. and European countries, as nuclear non-proliferation remains a top priority for them. The MEK’s strategy relies on the assumption that new concerns about Iran’s nuclear program could once again rally Western support, especially from factions that are skeptical of Iran’s nuclear intentions.

To bolster its claims, the MEK intends to introduce individuals as witnesses and experts to testify to the accuracy of the information provided about Iran’s nuclear activities. However, these individuals are believed to be MEK members posing as independent witnesses or experts. Presenting internal members as foreign witnesses is an attempt by the MEK to add credibility to its fabricated narratives, though these old tactics are usually met with skepticism. This deceptive approach exemplifies the MEK’s traditional methods of offering unverifiable claims to support its anti-Iranian allegations.

The MEK’s reliance on such tactics raises serious questions about the credibility of its claims. Critics argue that the Berlin meeting is merely another attempt by this group to exploit geopolitical conditions and pressure the West to provide additional funding, despite the lack of solid evidence for their assertions.

The timing of the Berlin meeting coincides with the U.S. reevaluation of its policies toward Iran. Recently, Trump remarked in his campaign that his only demand from Iran was to refrain from building nuclear weapons, marking a complete retreat from his previous conditions. This change of stance underscores the failure of the MEK’s new strategy. The reduction in Trump’s support and his emphasis on only one nuclear condition indicates that the maximum pressure campaign has been largely unsuccessful.

These developments carry broad implications for the MEK’s strategy. As the need for anti-Iranian instruments to pressure Iran diminishes, the MEK’s position is increasingly vulnerable. The Berlin meeting may be seen as a desperate attempt by the group to keep the nuclear issue on the minds of Western governments and maintain its relevance. Based on an examination of the MEK’s activities, which have lost much of their effectiveness, it appears the group is facing significant challenges in the future, as changes in international and U.S. policies undermine its traditional methods. Relying on unverifiable claims and dubious tactics has raised numerous concerns about the MEK’s intentions and credibility.