Abstract

On Wednesday 26 September 2012, Ramin Mehmanparast, the spokesperson for the Islamic regime’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was assaulted in the Manhattan area of New York, near the United Nations headquarters. The incident was quickly and widely broadcast by both domestic and foreign media outlets, with deliberate sensationalism and exaggeration. Paul Browne, the spokesperson for the New York Police Department, stated in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that Mehmanparast was simply 'passing by' and that there was no attempt to kill him; therefore, no one was arrested.

 

 

A Pantomime Of Persecution: The Hallmarks Of A Scripted Farce

A video uploaded to YouTube captures the moment when Mehmanparast was pursued for several minutes by multiple opposition members. The video clearly shows these individuals directing vulgar insults at him and engaging in what can be described as mild physical aggression. One of the pursuers, notably carrying the tricolour flag with the lion and sun emblem, employs crude, street-style profanities reminiscent of the very same Basiji militias and thug culture that the Islamic regime has perfected over the decades. The individuals harassing Mehmanparast not only verbally attack him but also the occasional shoving. Despite this, Mehmanparast neither retaliates nor displays fear, continuing his walk, as if he knew his attackers, until he is eventually shielded by New York police.

 

Meanwhile, the regime’s state-controlled media machine, operated by the ruling clerics, swiftly seized the opportunity to manipulate the incident to its advantage. With deliberate exaggeration, they accused American authorities of 'negligence' and held the U.S. government responsible for the safety of the regime’s delegation. The regime did not stop there. It went further, alleging that this attack was orchestrated by its opposition, specifically naming ‘the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation’ (MEK). In its usual fashion of deception and manipulation, the regime falsely claimed that Mehmanparast was not only 'beaten up' but that this was, in fact, a terrorist act supposedly coordinated with U.S. police forces.

 

However, there are glaring inconsistencies in this narrative. The entire event raises crucial and troubling questions: Was this a genuine security lapse, or a calculated stunt designed to smear Iran’s democratic opposition by conflating it with the MEK, a Marxist-Islamist terrorist group, and rally the regime’s base?

 

The evidence points overwhelmingly to the latter, a brazen act of political theatre, orchestrated by a regime desperate to cling to power by any means necessary.

 

 

1. A Contradiction in the Regime’s Fear Narrative

Let’s dispense with the regime’s pantomime of victimhood. The Islamic Regime’s entire existence is a monument to manufactured chaos, a rotting edifice sustained not by legitimacy but by the deliberate engineering of perpetual crisis.

 

How is it possible that an Islamic regime official, supposedly living in constant fear, would be left wandering about like some gormless tourist, without personal security? The regime’s top operatives are notorious for their paranoia, constantly surrounded by security personnel and rarely appearing in public without heavy protection, even within Iran. So why was Mehmanparast walking alone, unprotected, in one of the most politically charged cities in the world, where Iranian opposition figures are known to be active? What was he trying to achieve?

 

The answer is simple: it’s the authoritarian playbook stripped bare. This was a brazenly manufactured farce, executed with the cold precision of a regime that knows its survival depends on lies and chaos. A calculated move by the regime to stage a theatrical performance for propaganda purposes, one aimed at creating an international scandal while simultaneously vilifying its opposition and the West as complicit in “terrorism.” In other word, the Regime’s Playbook: “Smear, Fear, and Victimhood.”

 

 

2. MEK’s Violent Reputation and the Improbability of Restraint

This could not have been carried out by MEK members. If the MEK had the opportunity to get their hands on Mehmanparast or other key regime figures, would they have merely insulted him and let him walk away unscathed?

 

Let us not be naive. The MEK, a notoriously violent Marxist-Islamist-extremist organisation, with a CV drenched in bombings and bullet-riddled assassinations, does not “do” half-measures. The MEK terrorists, like their Islamist counterparts in power in Iran, do not hesitate to engage in bloodshed. The history has proven that they are cut from the same cloth as the Islamic regime itself. Their rhetoric, their behaviour towards other opposition groups, especially nationalists including the constitutional monarchists, reveal their true nature. The MEK has consistently deployed the same vile language and brutal tactics that the regime has used against the Iranian nation for the past three decades.

 

Therefore, had they targeted Mehmanparast, he’d be in a body bag, not strolling to a press conference. The regime knows this, but naming the MEK as culprit is cold, calculated gaslighting.  By scapegoating the MEK, a group the West, in its infinite naivety, or perhaps as part of a cunning calculation to prevent the return of monarchy to Iran, which is considered a threat to their interests, scrubbed clean of “terrorist” branding by the Uk in 2008, followed by the European Union in 2009 and apparently soon by the US– the regime aims to tar all dissent with the brush of extremism. Nationalists including the constitutional monarchists? Students with the audacity to demand basic freedoms? All become collateral in this propaganda war. It’s a classic authoritarian two-step: first, conflate legitimate resistance with the most demonised bogeyman available; then, watch as the hand-wringing reformist faction in Iran clutches its rosary beads and murmurs, “Well, perhaps the conservatives have a point!”

 

 

3. Political Gains for the Regime

Why did the Islamic regime immediately broadcast this incident in Iran? What benefit does it gain, and who are the real winners and losers? The answer is self-evident: this was an orchestrated event, a carefully staged spectacle designed to serve multiple propaganda objectives. The regime sought to discredit the opposition, instil fear in the Iranian nation, especially among its wavering supporters, and paint the opposition as a chaotic, violent alternative that would only bring disaster to Iran should the regime collapse.

 

With the assistance of its foreign media allies, including BBC Persian (Infamously known as 'Ayatollah BBC' for its anti-Iranian stance and historical bias in favour of the Islamic regime), the Islamic regime seized the moment to tarnish the image of opposition groups, particularly monarchists and nationalists. These are the very groups that consistently wave the lion and sun flag at protests and events worldwide, signifying a commitment to a secular, nationalist future for Iran. By broadcasting the video of Mehmanparast’s harassment, the regime sought to label these opposition members as nothing more than lawless thugs, attempting to reinforce the idea that democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice are unattainable ideals, mere illusions.

 

More critically, this incident served as a tool for the regime to manipulate its own disillusioned supporters. The Islamic regime, crumbling under economic ruin, political corruption, and growing public dissent, used this incident to remind its followers that 'a fistful is a sign of a sacksful.' In other words, it warned them that if the regime falls, chaos and bloodshed will follow, and their lives will be in even greater peril than they are now. This is a classic fear-mongering tactic, one the regime has used for decades to retain its grip on power.

 

 

The Opposition’s Responsibility

Tragically, many well-intentioned Iranians failed to see through this charade. Many, without considering the broader consequences, foolishly celebrated the event, assuming that such incidents accelerate the regime’s downfall. In doing so, they unknowingly 'poured water into the enemy’s mill' and played directly into the regime’s hands, helping it prolong its existence. The regime thrives on such spectacles, as they reinforce its narrative and provide justification for its continued repression.

 

Ultimately, I urge the opposition, especially the monarchists, to react wisely. They must recognise this incident for what it is: an anti-Iranian manipulation, a deceitful ploy designed to divide and weaken the resistance against the regime. Instead of celebrating such staged provocations, the opposition must expose and condemn them, making it clear to both Iranians inside the country and the global community that the true opposition to the Islamic regime is one that upholds justice, law, and order. The future Iran, after the regime’s inevitable collapse, must not be one ruled by chaos, violence, and vendettas. It must be a nation built on justice and reason, not one where we outdo the mullahs, the MEK, or other radical factions in brutality.

 

 

In A Nutshell

This was a brazenly manufactured farce, executed with the cold precision of a regime that knows its survival depends on casting dissent as madness. They’re not protecting politicians, they’re weaponising them. Every staged “threat”, every performative whinge about persecution, is a calculated act of narrative warfare. It’s the same old song: paint critics as unhinged extremists, gaslight the globe with tales of victimhood, and justify yet another crackdown in the name of “security”. A transparent gambit, yet one they’ll repeat ad nauseam because their useful idiots in the West still lap it up.

 

Compatriots, Wake up. The Islamic regime doesn’t “make mistakes”, it makes strategies. That’s how regimes drenched in blood stay afloat. They provoke, they lie, they martyr their own henchmen if it suits the script. And while liberal handwringers clutch pearls over “dialogue”, the regime’s thugs are laughing, because they know the game. They’ve studied the Stasi, the Securitate, every tinpot tyranny that grasped a simple truth: when your only currency is fear, you manufacture enemies. Even imaginary ones.

 

What happened in New York, was a grotesque pantomime to rebrand the national resistance as terrorism. And to those still peddling the regime’s sob stories, grow a spine. Either you’re complicit in the charade or you’re resisting it. There’s no “neutrality” when faced with a regime that turns oppression into performance art. The choice isn’t complex: The Islamic Regime survives on our silence. Time to rise, dismantle the Islamic theatre of cruelty and liberate our nation and our beloved Iran from the clutches of their tyrannical rule.