In light of the ongoing nationwide uprising in Iran and the warnings issued by senior regime officials regarding the emerging threats posed by the country’s principal organized opposition, the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK), it is important to examine the motives of those who seek to discredit and malign the group.

One such individual is so-called Iran scholar, Michael Rubin, who continues to throw the mullahs a lifeline by smearing the MEK.

Rubin’s anti-MEK tirades have been well documented, with five pieces published in just over two months in the Washington Examiner. Strangely, the publication has refused to publish even one of the measured and well-researched rebuttals by Ali Safavi of the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee, calling into question the motives of both Rubin and the Washington Examiner.

Rubin’s attacks on the MEK have been criticized as unethical and lacking in professionalism, with his accusations that the thousands of dignitaries who support the group, including former AEI scholars and the late Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, are in it simply for the money being particularly egregious. Furthermore, Rubin has dodged questions about his own financial scandals, making his accusations all the more hypocritical.

Rubin’s media darling status in Iran, including a front-page feature in the mouthpiece of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, only adds to the suspicions surrounding his true allegiances. Rubin’s visits to Iran, which he has tried to trivialize, are circumstantial evidence of his anti-MEK propaganda. He has been granted visa access to the country on multiple occasions, a feat not even trusted Iranian journalists have achieved. The State Department has provided a more factual account of Rubin’s visits, with evidence of his close ties to regime-affiliated individuals and organizations.

Despite his supposed “neoconservative ex-Bush administration Iran hawk” credentials, Rubin’s motives have been called into question. There are instances of individuals who have been branded as anti-mullah militants for years, only to be later unmasked as secret agents working for the regime.

Rubin’s demands for the MEK to “open their books” have been deemed a neo-colonialist pretense, and have been met with accusations that he is trying to aid and abet the regime by identifying the group’s financial backers. Some of these backers have faced arrest or execution in recent months and years, making Rubin’s demands all the more concerning.

In conclusion, it is important to examine the motives of individuals like Michael Rubin who seek to discredit and malign opposition groups like the MEK in Iran. Rubin’s history of anti-MEK propaganda, along with his close ties to regime-affiliated individuals and organizations, raises serious questions about his true allegiances and motives.

MEK Iran (follow us on Twitter and Facebook), Maryam Rajavi’s on her site, Twitter & Facebook, NCRI  (Twitter & Facebook), and People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran – MEK IRAN – YouTub