TEHRAN - The US–Israeli war on Iran has ended in a strategic failure for the aggressors and an even deeper humiliation for the exiled Iranian opposition groups who hoped to ride foreign intervention into power. 

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Tehran and Washington, set to be signed in Geneva on Friday, exposes the limits of American leverage despite President Donald Trump’s attempts to present himself as victorious of the war that initially began on February 28. None of the goals Washington claimed it would impose on Iran—restrictions on the missile program, dismantling of regional alliances, or zero enrichment—were achieved.

The January unrest in Iran provided Trump with the pretext he needed to escalate military deployments under the banner of supporting the Iranian people. As protests turned into violent riots, Trump encouraged Iranians to rise up and promised that “help is on the way.” That help arrived in the form of bombs. During the 39‑day war, halted by a ceasefire on April 8, thousands of Iranian civilians—many of them women and children—were killed by US–Israeli airstrikes.

Mossad and CIA fuel unrest in Iran

From the beginning, Iranian officials warned that the January unrest was being fueled by foreign intelligence services, including the CIA and Mossad, and that armed provocateurs were killing protesters to manufacture a justification for intervention. Israel Hayom recently revealed that the US and Israel had indeed coordinated efforts to destabilize Iran during the January riots, including attempts to smuggle weapons to Kurdish groups in hopes of igniting a broader insurgency. Trump himself admitted that the US had sent weapons to Kurdish factions, only to complain that they “kept them” instead of using them to attack Iran.

US-Israeli stooges 

Alongside military pressure and covert operations, Washington and Tel Aviv relied heavily on exiled opposition figures to advance their regime‑change agenda. Among them was Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, who has spent nearly five decades abroad—mostly in the United States—completely detached from Iran’s social, cultural, and political realities. 

Western media attempted to market him as a future leader, but inside Iran he had no constituency. His repeated appeals for foreign intervention, including military pressure, alienated even many Iranians who oppose the Islamic Republic. Videos of him urging external powers to help Iran through coercive measures sparked widespread condemnation.

His credibility collapsed entirely when he openly supported the US–Israeli aggression on February 28. For Iranians, endorsing foreign aggression crosses the ultimate red line. A leader defends his homeland; a pawn applauds its bombardment.

The final blow came this week when US Vice President JD Vance stated in an interview with Megyn Kelly that Washington never intended to install Reza Pahlavi as Iran’s leader. “The president of the United States never said that his goal was to install Reza Pahlavi to become the new leader of Iran,” Vance said. For many Iranians, this confirmed what they had long believed: Pahlavi was never more than a disposable tool—useful only as long as he served US and Israeli interests. Once the geopolitical winds shifted, he was discarded without ceremony.

Pahlavi’s fall mirrors the long‑standing discredit of the Mujahedin‑e Khalq (MKO) terror group. The MKO’s record of betrayal is well‑known in Iran. During the Iran–Iraq War, the organization openly sided with Saddam Hussein, participating in military operations against their own country and contributing to the deaths of thousands of Iranians. Their collaboration with a foreign aggressor permanently destroyed their legitimacy among the Iranian population. Their later cooperation with US and Israeli intelligence services only deepened that stigma.

Taken together, the failed war, the failed unrest, and the failed opposition strategy have made one reality unmistakable: the United States has thrown Reza Pahlavi, the MKO, and the entire exiled opposition under the bus. Vance’s remarks were not a diplomatic footnote—they were a public acknowledgment that Washington never viewed these figures as viable leaders, only as temporary instruments. Now that their usefulness has expired, they have been abandoned.

The Iranian opposition has shamelessly celebrated attacks on Iranian soil — even the killing of schoolchildren in Minab — and used to call the US president “Uncle Trump,” claiming he would come and liberate Iran.  But if you go on social media these days, the very same people are now calling Trump insulting names like “the real estate guy,” “Yellow Head,” and even using vulgar sexual slurs against him.

For the Iranian people, this episode reinforces a long‑held conviction: legitimate leadership cannot be manufactured in Washington or Tel Aviv. It must emerge from within Iran’s own political and social fabric, not from exiled figures who cheer foreign bombs or collaborate with past enemies. The American disavowal is not just a political embarrassment for these opposition groups—it is the final confirmation of their irrelevance.