The MEK’s “Resistance Units”: A Manufactured Illusion of Dissent

Section One: The Nature and Objectives of the Project

The “Resistance Units” campaign has been promoted by the MEK in recent years, particularly under the shadow of increasing external pressure against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This campaign seeks to convey the impression that the organization still maintains influence and activity within the country. However, available evidence shows that these actions neither stem from social roots nor represent genuine protest. Rather, they are staged and artificial operations, often filmed and disseminated via social media to create the illusion of domestic instability.

The so-called resistance units are, in reality, a virtual propaganda network producing low-quality videos of minor actions such as graffiti, small fires, or damage to public signs. Individuals involved in this project—often vulnerable youth—are recruited with promises of financial reward or residency abroad and are asked to film their activities and send them to MEK media agents through Telegram or other platforms. After the videos are used for propaganda, there are reports of these individuals being exposed or abandoned, and in some cases, their arrests are also exploited for further media gain.

Section Two: Digital Fabrication and Media Manipulation

To make these staged actions appear real, the organization’s media operatives employ professional digital editing tools such as Photoshop, After Effects, and Premiere. Using CGI and cinematic techniques, they fabricate scenes of fire and destruction. These fake clips are then distributed through the organization’s official media and affiliated networks abroad.

The goal of this campaign is to mislead international audiences, influence foreign policymakers, and reinforce the MEK’s façade as an active opposition force. This project also serves an internal function: maintaining the morale of isolated and disillusioned members who have become aware of the organization’s declining influence.

Section Three: Internal Testimonies and Contradictions

Reports and testimonies from former MEK members indicate that the “Resistance Units” project has, paradoxically, deepened the organization’s internal crisis. Many lower-ranking members—especially the younger ones—gradually realize the artificial nature of the project and its ethical costs. Disillusionment intensifies as they confront the organization’s outdated ideology, repressive hierarchical structure, and complete detachment from the realities of life in Iran.

Despite strict surveillance and limited access to outside information, these individuals often come to recognize the gap between the organization’s claims and the socio-political reality in Iran. This awareness has led to growing dissatisfaction, internal dissent, and increased efforts to escape the organization. In some cases, members who were forced to participate in making the videos have expressed regret, anger, and a desire to leave.

Section Four: Strategic Goals and International Implications

The MEK presents these staged actions as evidence of its operational capacity and continued existence to its foreign supporters in Washington and Tel Aviv. In this process, it competes with other opposition groups—such as monarchists, separatists, and rival ideological factions—for political and financial support. The “Resistance Units” campaign is a central component of this competition, functioning as a tool for attracting attention and securing funding.

However, these efforts have yielded diminishing returns. The organization’s long history of violence—including terrorist acts in the 1980s and collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War—continues to cast a heavy shadow over its current propaganda. As a result, the Resistance Units project has now become a liability—exposing the MEK’s reliance on deception and further isolating it from genuine opposition movements.

The “Resistance Units” initiative does not stem from the real demands or struggles of the Iranian people. It is a digital campaign of psychological warfare built on manipulation, coercion, and foreign backing. Rather than representing a threat to national stability, it more clearly reflects the internal decay of the MEK and its desperate efforts to remain relevant on the geopolitical stage.

We call on international human rights institutions and United Nations mechanisms to closely examine such tactics, distinguish between legitimate civic activism and deceptive operations, and consider the consequences of supporting groups with a record of violence and psychological abuse. The continued spread of false narratives poses a threat to informed policymaking and undermines the credibility of human rights advocacy on the global stage.