On 6 September 2025, tens of thousands of Iranians filled the streets of Brussels in the largest Iranian opposition rally in Europe, marking the 60th anniversary of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI/MEK). At its heart was support for Maryam Rajavi’s ‘Third Option’ – No to War, No to Appeasement, but regime change by the people of Iran and their organised Resistance.
With prominent international figures addressing the rally, its scale was undeniable – yet mainstream outlets ignored it, raising serious questions about Western appeasement of Tehran, the breach of journalism’s own professed standards, and the absence of accountability to the public.
International politicians in solidarity
The line-up of speakers underscored the significance of the day, led by Maryam Rajavi herself, the NCRI’s president-elect, who once again laid out her blueprint for a secular, democratic, non-nuclear Iran. She was joined by an array of prominent international figures, among them Mike Pence, former Vice President of the United States; Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium; Alejo Vidal-Quadras, former Vice President of the European Parliament and himself a victim of Iranian regime terrorism; John Bercow, former Speaker of the UK House of Commons; and more.
This was no fringe gathering. It was a highly visible, politically significant mobilisation in the heart of the EU, with major political figures on stage and tens of thousands on the streets.
Despite its scale and the prominence of its speakers, coverage was almost non-existent across mainstream news outlets. A major rally in Brussels, featuring some of the West’s most recognisable political names, was largely treated as if it never happened.
Appeasement and its consequences
This silence cannot be separated from the wider policy of appeasement toward Tehran pursued for decades by many Western governments. European diplomats themselves have admitted that in every negotiation with Iran, one of the first conditions put forward by the regime was the demand to restrict the MEK and limit its activities.
For decades, Tehran has also led a demonising campaign against its main opposition, aimed at convincing the world there is ‘no alternative’ to its rule. Too often, Western governments have echoed or accommodated this narrative, following the regime’s lead rather than challenging it.
Tehran regards the MEK and NCRI as an existential threat, because they represent a real, organised, democratic alternative. That fear is then translated into pressure on Western governments to isolate the movement.
This political pressure inevitably seeps into the media. Editors, whether consciously or unconsciously, operate within the climate created by their governments’ policies. When governments treat the MEK as a bargaining chip in talks with Tehran, newsrooms follow the same logic – marginalising or silencing coverage of the movement, regardless of its ability to mobilise tens of thousands in the heart of Europe.
Journalism’s broken promise
The rally in Brussels highlighted two truths: the enduring strength of the Iranian opposition in exile, and the fragility of journalistic standards when politics intrudes.
If tens of thousands march in Brussels and international figures from the US, UK, and EU stand on the same platform as Maryam Rajavi, yet most of the press remains silent, then something is broken. Journalism’s duty is to reflect reality, not erase it.
Those in Brussels raised their voices for a free Iran – each one representing thousands more inside the country who cannot speak out, because support for the MEK or even mentioning Maryam Rajavi are red lines punishable by arrest, torture, or execution, as seen in the recent killings of MEK supporters and Resistance Unit members.
The silence by the media has broken the very standards it professes to uphold – accuracy, impartiality, and responsibility to the truth. It does so without any real accountability to the public. Editors must ask themselves: when history judges, will their silence be remembered as neutrality – or as complicity in covering up a people’s struggle for freedom?
