Bylines Missing, Truth Missing: The NYT’s Distorted Iran Coverage

As the Iranian regime shows signs of profound instability following the recent regional conflict and serious discussions regarding regime change gain momentum, The New York Times—with a discernible pattern of intervention—has predictably rushed to its aid. Its recent article, "Amid Attacks, Iran’s Exiled Opposition Remained Divided. Who Are They?" (NYTimes, June 25), appears designed to disparage the principal, most organized opposition movement, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), thereby reinforcing the baseless premise that no viable alternative to the mullahs exists.

This stance is hardly unprecedented for the Times. In 2003, in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, as U.S. policy circles debated a strategic pivot towards regime change in Iran, the Times notably came to the regime’s rescue. It published a scathing 4,665-word article, devoid of any counterarguments or rebuttals to its outlandish allegations, that erroneously labeled the MEK as a cult, describing life at Camp Ashraf in Iraq as a "fictional world of female worker bees," and asserting the group possessed absolutely no support within Iran. Remarkably, at that very moment, the MEK maintained a fully organized and combat-ready Brigade-strength mechanized conventional army, strategically positioned merely fifty miles from the Iranian border in Iraq. The potential for exerting significant pressure on the regime had never been greater, rendering the Times’ intervention anything but accidental.

The pattern conspicuously recurred in September 2011. As the U.S. government, facing pressure from the MEK’s well-substantiated legal challenge to its politically motivated terrorist designation, considered finally delisting the group, the Times again intervened, seemingly on cue, to echo the regime’s established talking points. But the article drew a public rebuke from the paper’s own public editor, who acknowledged the article had been "so one-sided" that inclusion of the MEK’s perspective was "an essential but missing" element of the piece. “It would be ideal if The Times…. Detail[ed] the MEK’s point of view," he wrote. To this day, that call has not been heeded.

This regrettable pattern resurfaced in February 2020, after the nationwide uprising that shook Tehran to its core. The star witness of the Times’ 2020 hit piece was an individual whom the Chair of the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee personally identified to the reporter—during a nine-hour meeting at Ashraf-3 in Albania—as an agent of the Iranian regime. The Times flagrantly disregarded this explicit warning, along with dozens of corroborating documents presented at the meeting. Repeated follow-up letters to the paper’s senior editors went unanswered. Even when the NCRI’s representatives directly communicated unequivocal evidence of the individual’s true affiliations to the Times’ top leadership, they were met only with silence.

Fast-forward to March 2025, when this same individual penned a tell-all letter to the UN Secretary-General, openly admitting his recruitment and receipt of hefty sums from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). He confessed to being coached on what narrative to present to the NYTimes reporter and unequivocally stated that all his previous allegations were false. The NCRI’s legal counsel promptly transmitted this confession and a full copy of the letter to the Times’ executive editor, managing editor, and foreign editor. Yet again, their response was profound silence.

It is worth noting that European intelligence services—including in Germany and the Netherlands—have repeatedly documented the regime’s recruitment of “former members” to demonize the MEK.

The June 2025 article amounts to little more than a stale rehash of previously discredited attempts to undermine the MEK—allegations so unfounded they scarcely merit rebuttal. Among its sources is the so-called “academic” Nader Hashemi, who asserts that the MEK lacks support inside Iran. It is worth recalling that members of Congress had previously denounced Hashemi’s remarks regarding the attack on Salman Rushdie, describing them as “regime propaganda” intended to diminish Tehran’s culpability.

Most egregiously, the article cherry-picks a single line from NCRI President-elect Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s June 18 remarks at the European Parliament. The Times writes, "Mrs. Rajavi said that Israel’s attack on Iran marked ‘the start of a new and sensitive phase in Iran’s internal crisis and in broader regional dynamics.’" The full quote conveys an entirely different meaning: "The war that began at dawn on Friday marks the start of a critical new phase…. in Iran’s internal crisis and in the broader dynamics of the region…. [T]he main war…. is the battle of the Iranian people and resistance against the rule of religious fascism…." The Times' selective quotation fundamentally alters the message, misleading readers about Mrs. Rajavi's views on the war and her emphasis on internal Iranian resistance. The truth is patently clear for anyone genuinely seeking it—except, it appears, for The New York Times.

The MEK condemned and fought against Iraq’s invasion of Iran. After Iraq’s withdrawal from Iranian territory in 1982, it launched a peace campaign decisive in the ceasefire, helping prevent the slaughter of Iran’s youth—a move the Iranian people welcomed. Politically, militarily, and economically, the MEK remained completely independent of Iraq. In 22 years since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, no evidence contradicts this.

The “Islamic Marxist” allegation has been repeatedly rejected not only by the MEK but by American academics with no sympathy for the organization. These facts were readily available to the Times.

Regarding the assertion that MEK members were “told to… divorce their spouses,” one need only refer to The Times’ own article following its correspondent’s December 1996 visit to Ashraf.

When the self-proclaimed “paper of record” knowingly features an agent of a hostile regime, disregards credible warnings, and subsequently refuses to correct its reporting—even in the face of a public, irrefutable confession—this transcends mere journalistic lapse. It constitutes irrefutable evidence of a deep political bias and a stubborn pursuit of a political line that ultimately serves to justify the continued engagement and appeasement of Iran’s murderous rulers—a regime which is the world's most active sponsor of terrorism today and has been condemned by the United Nations for committing crimes against humanity and genocide, including the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners, a vast majority of whom belonged to the MEK.

One can only hope that the Times’ inexplicable hostility toward, and biased reporting on, the Iranian Resistance is unconnected to Foreign Policy magazine’s 2015 exposé, which revealed that editors overseeing the Times’ Iran coverage had organized luxury tours to Iran—each costing $7,195 per person, excluding airfare.

In the end, the New York Times’ June 25 article represents not journalism, but the uncritical repetition of the Iranian regime’s propaganda—at the expense of the very principles of integrity, impartiality, objectivity, and professionalism that journalism is all about.

Safavi (@amsafavi) is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).