Today’s broadcast addressed one of the most confusing and emotionally charged geopolitical issues facing conservatives, Christians, and the America First movement: Iran, regime change, and the growing debate over who should replace the Islamic Republic if it falls. My guest, Hedieh Mirahmadi, joined me to help bring clarity to why so many people who agree on nearly everything else are now divided over groups like the MEK and the role of the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi.
This conversation is necessary because confusion benefits no one. When people who have stood shoulder to shoulder for years suddenly appear to be on opposite sides, the worst thing we can do is pretend the disagreement does not exist. We owe the audience honesty, context, and transparency so they can evaluate the facts for themselves.
Why Iran’s Uprising Matters
We began by acknowledging the human cost unfolding in Iran. Thousands of young people have been killed, imprisoned, or permanently injured for daring to protest a brutal regime. Many of them are under the age of eighteen. Alongside them is a rapidly growing underground Christian church, now numbering more than a million believers, suffering under the same oppression.
What makes this situation even more tragic is the mixed messaging coming from the United States. Iranian protesters were publicly encouraged to rise up, with assurances that help was coming. Those assurances were repeated by U.S. leaders and echoed across social media. Then the help never came. The credibility damage from that reversal cannot be overstated, not just with Iranians, but with other nations watching closely.
Strategic Interests Versus Moral Clarity
Hedieh explained that from a U.S. foreign policy perspective, decisions are rarely driven by morality or the will of the people on the ground. Instead, they are driven by strategic predictability. The question asked by policymakers is not what Iranians want, but what outcome best preserves existing geopolitical arrangements.
This helps explain why some within government and intelligence circles are willing to work with groups like the MEK. From their perspective, the MEK is familiar, structured, and historically tied to U.S. intelligence and military operations, particularly after 2003 in Iraq. That long-standing relationship creates a sense of control and predictability, even if the group itself carries a deeply troubling ideological and operational history.
The MEK and the Problem of Selective Grace
One of the most troubling inconsistencies exposed in this discussion is how grace is selectively applied. The MEK was once designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization. It has acknowledged involvement in the killing of U.S. personnel prior to the 1979 revolution. It has a cult-like internal structure, demands total obedience to its leadership, interferes in family relationships, and aligns ideologically with Islamic Marxism.
And yet, many are willing to argue that the MEK has “changed,” that its past no longer defines it, and that it deserves another chance.
At the same time, those same voices often refuse to extend even minimal grace to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah. He is dismissed as a monarchist, a destabilizing force, or an unknown risk, despite repeatedly stating that he does not seek a throne, supports a national referendum, and advocates for democratic governance, transparency, peace with Israel, and normalized relations with the United States.
This double standard raises an unavoidable question: why is grace extended to a former terrorist organization but denied to a reform-minded Iranian figure whose platform openly rejects terrorism, nuclear weapons, and Islamist extremism?
Why a Free Iran Frightens the Status Quo
Hedieh made a critical point that cannot be ignored. A truly free and democratic Iran would represent something unprecedented in the Muslim world: the rejection of Islamism by the people themselves. Not by foreign invasion, but by internal collapse.
Such an outcome would threaten existing power structures across the Middle East. It would destabilize oil pricing agreements, challenge Islamist regimes, undermine long-standing alliances, and expose the false narrative that Muslim populations inherently desire Islamic governance.
From that perspective, a free Iran is not desirable to those invested in maintaining the current balance of power. Predictable oppression is preferred over unpredictable freedom.
The Cult Structure and Ideology of the MEK
During the broadcast, it was explained why many former members and analysts describe the MEK as a cult. The organization enforces strict loyalty to its leader, Maryam Rajavi, separates members from their families, interferes in marriages and child custody, and operates communal compounds.
Ideologically, the MEK combines Marxism with Islam, aligning naturally with other Islamist regimes and actors in the region. Its leadership openly associates with figures tied to the Palestinian cause and maintains positions that mirror those of Qatar, Turkey, and other Islamist governments.
This makes the MEK a comfortable fit within the existing Middle Eastern order, but a dangerous choice for anyone hoping to see Islam defeated rather than repackaged.
What Could Be Done Instead
The discussion also addressed alternatives to military intervention. Hedieh outlined non-kinetic options that could meaningfully weaken the Iranian regime, including aggressive financial enforcement against the IRGC, seizure of assets, disruption of oil revenues, and cyber operations to prevent censorship and communications blackouts.
These measures could significantly reduce the regime’s ability to suppress its people without putting American boots on the ground.
Coalitions, Disagreements, and the Need for Honesty
Throughout the broadcast, one principle guided the conversation: disagreement does not require destruction. Quoting Ronald Reagan, someone who agrees with you eighty percent of the time is not a twenty percent enemy. Many of the people supporting the MEK are longtime allies in the fight against Islamism, globalism, and tyranny.
But unity cannot be built on silence or confusion. It must be built on truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable.
This is why these conversations matter. Not to attack individuals, but to expose ideas to scrutiny, allow debate, and let the audience make informed decisions. Confusion is the enemy. Clarity is the goal.
