The Iranian Opposition and the Disinformation War (Part 3)
How MEK and ethnic separatist campaigns to undermine Iranian opposition help the Islamic Republic
The Islamic Republic and its network in the West do not possess a monopoly on disinformation regarding the Iranian opposition and the protest movement. The MEK political cult and ethnic separatist movements will be discussed here, so to raise awareness of how politicians, media and analysts have supported them at expense of the Iranian opposition and the liberation struggle. It is to be shown here that both these movements traffic in disinformation which has also been used by the regime to bolster its own narratives.
The Mojahedin-E-Khalq (MEK): a political cult despised by the Iranian people
In my earlier article, I implored politicians, analysts and journalists to reconsider the very poor decisions they make when it comes to the Iranian opposition. The events that have followed since confirms how many of them are incapable of learning this lesson. For this, a more detailed explanation is required with regards to the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), or People’s Mojahedin of Iran, a sinister political cult marrying Leftist and Islamist ideologies extremely unpopular among Iranians.
The MEK is a group which has committed terrorist acts and supported the seizure of power by Khomeini in 1979. It broke with the Islamic Republic and supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, which led to the MEK becoming the most hated organisation among Iranians outside of the regime itself. They are also hated by Iraqi Kurds for the same reason. For many years, the group was based in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where cult practices were imposed on those resident within. They are now based in Albania.
The group’s cult practices include keeping its members in their camp under strict control, control over members’ personal lives in isolation, severe human rights violations including forced sterilisation, secrecy around their organisational workings, and refusing to tell the world whether its “supreme leader” Masoud Rajavi is alive or dead (his third wife Maryam Rajavi is the cult’s public leader). Another cult characteristic is defections, and testimonies of ex-members are consistent.
Following the Iraq War, the MEK rebranded itself as a “democratic” opposition group and was delisted by the United States as a terrorist organisation in 2012. It has attracted the support of European and American politicians who are paid to attend its Astroturf rallies, write in favour of the group and get Congress to pass resolutions in its favour. To say it reflects the questionable integrity of these politicians is an understatement, often it speaks volumes about their corruption.
Typical of cults, the MEK lies about every aspect of its existence. Their disinformation methods are not dissimilar to that of the Islamic Republic: their claims of support in Iran (when they have none), their claims to be the leading opposition group and adhere to democratic values, and their claims of ownership of the Iranian protest movement. Their belief that they are the only opposition to the regime is reflected in their army of trolls (similar to those of the Islamic Republic) attacking Reza Pahlavi and the opposition movement on social media, and claiming that all opposition groups are somehow connected to the regime.
The media aids and abets this disinformation not merely by publishing articles favourable to the MEK, but by attributing opposition activity to it by using MEK-related images even when covering opposition activity which has nothing to do with the MEK. This is also a form of dangerous disinformation which can easily be picked up by pro-regime sources to justify brutal repression of protesters.
In the Diaspora, the MEK operates various front groups under different names. Many people may have interacted with them online or in real life, believing they are for the cause of a “Free Iran”. This is down to the MEK’s tailored messaging and deceptive practices which is typical of a cult, meaning that many people are unaware of its true nature.
The continued support given to the MEK from people who really should know better is a betrayal of the Iranian people and undermines the real opposition to the Islamic Republic. The people supporting MEK are not told the truth - they have no capacity to bring regime change in Iran, and even if they were the outcome would be as undesirable as the present regime and Iranians know that. They are hated by Iranians as much as the Islamic Republic is, and this is a point of agreement among all Iranian opposition movements.
Balkanisation: An irresponsible idea
Over the years we have seen dubious “analysis” claiming that the key to change in Iran lies in ethnic politics, even going as far as to suggest that Iran should be broken up in the manner of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Disturbingly, the idea has gained support among many Western, Israeli and Arab analysts despite its unpopularity among Iranians and the fact that it feeds into regime propaganda. Particularly sinister and disturbing has been the role pro-Azerbaijan lobbyists have played in promoting ethnic identity narratives concerning Iran, given its potential to create ethnic conflict.
Iran is an ancient nation rich in its diversity of ethnic groups and religions, but sharing a common national identity. Iranians recognise this diversity and the identities of the communities within the country. It is not an artificial or forced union like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, nor is it like the United States, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, India or Australia where federal systems operate. Analysts who believe that such a solution can be proposed for Iran have little understanding of the realities and go against the wishes of Iranian people who believe in national unity and territorial integrity.
The most radical ethnic movements are Arab and Azerbaijani separatists, who have become the noisiest of the ethnic activists. They routinely insult Reza Pahlavi and the Iranian opposition, and attack Iranian history and culture. This is not dissimilar to the identity politics which is dividing Western democracies.
This radicalism has found Western support from the notorious Azerbaijan lobbyist Brenda Shaffer, whose writings on ethnic identity politics have rightly drawn the ire of Iranians on social media. In a recent article on protests in Khuzestan, Shaffer even went as far as to claim that the protests were ethnic in nature and unconnected to the sentiments of the mainstream Iranian opposition. This is a classic example of dishonesty calculated to serve the separatist agenda, and simultaneously creating propaganda for the regime.
The role played by pro-Azerbaijan lobbyists in shaping ethnic identity narratives is to be noted (it is curious that the same people who insist on Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity don’t believe the same for Iran). Particularly disturbing is how figures such as Ahmad Obali of Gunaz TV, promoting radical ethnic nationalism, has managed to gain access to Western media and think tanks to promote his own disinformation. These people claim to promote solidarity among minorities, yet have also worked to radicalise people against Kurds and Armenians in line with the agenda of their sponsors.
A number of Israeli and Arab analysts and social media posters have amplified separatist narratives, which has also appeared in media outlets. Israeli analyst Mordechai Kedar is notorious for promoting Iran’s Balkanisation, which effectively serves as a tool of regime propaganda. Such behaviour jeopardises the goodwill Iranian people desire to show Israel and the Arab World.
The Islamic Republic is an anti-Iranian regime with no claim on Iranian nationalism, but threats to Iran’s territorial integrity enable it to play the nationalist card and present itself as the one force capable of holding the country together.
Furthermore, the calls for solidarity among Iran’s various ethnic groups by Azerbaijani nationalists is cynical, given the pan-Turk movement’s association with hate speech and racial violence in Turkey and elsewhere. These people have ties to certain security structures, but have been given platforms by Western media and think-tanks to promote their agenda. Other ethnic movements and activists, more moderate in tone, have taken notice of this, which means the pan-Turk strategy backed by Azerbaijan lobbyists is likely to backfire and leave these extremists isolated.
The Iranian people want the world’s support to liberate their country from tyranny, not to divide the country along ethnic lines which will risk bitter ethnic conflict. The very fear of such a conflict is used by the regime and its apologists to justify repression and maintain itself in power. Politicians, media and think-tanks promoting the separatist narratives anger Iranians and play into the hands of the regime.
Reza Pahlavi has spoken to Arab and Israeli media outlets and recently met with American Jewish leaders. In Israel, the Arab world and in various communities they surely must be aware of this. This makes flirtation with MEK and separatist movements irresponsible on part of those who should be supporting the Iranian people instead.