Operation Mersad was more than the defeat of a military offensive. It was a defining moment in Iran's national security history, demonstrating that whenever the enemy assumes Iran is weak or passive, it is met with a response far beyond its calculations. In early August 1988, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), relying on intelligence, logistical, and political backing from its Western supporters and believing that the Islamic Republic's defenses had been exhausted following its acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 598, launched its so-called Operation Forough Javidan (Eternal Light) with the ambition of capturing Tehran within days. The group believed it could achieve through organized terrorism and the mass killing of Iranians what Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime had failed to accomplish during eight years of the imposed war. That project—effectively a plan for genocide—was decisively crushed in the historic Operation Mersad through the vigilance of Iran's Armed Forces, national unity, and the leadership of Lt. Gen. Ali Sayad Shirazi.

Mersad: The Defeat of Terrorism and the Birth of National Deterrence

Beyond a military victory, Mersad proved that Iran's security rests not on promises from foreign powers but on national unity, constant preparedness, and indigenous defense capabilities. It demonstrated that relying on agreements, resolutions, or the post-ceasefire environment without vigilance and strength can itself invite renewed aggression.

That lesson continues to shape the conduct of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Following the 12-Day War, they have maintained full operational readiness while accelerating efforts to address deficiencies and strengthen domestic defense capabilities. The results became evident during the Ramadan War, particularly in the effective management of the Strait of Hormuz and the enhancement of Iran's regional deterrence.

West: Champion of Human Rights or Longtime Backer of Terrorism?

A review of Western conduct before and after Operation Mersad illustrates what Iran views as the double standards of countries that claim to defend human rights. The same governments that today invoke human rights to justify sanctions, political pressure, and even war were yesterday among the principal intelligence, political, and media supporters of an organization responsible for the deaths of more than 17,000 Iranians.

The recent admission by the NATO Secretary General regarding the alliance's role in supporting US and Israeli military actions against Iran is presented as another example of a longstanding pattern in Western policy.

Western support did not end after the MKO was expelled from Iraq. Europe and the US provided the group with safe haven, media support, and political platforms in an effort to transform it from a terrorist organization into a legitimate political actor. Meanwhile, certain self-described human rights rapporteurs and media outlets such as the BBC and Iran International are accused of contributing to cognitive warfare against Iran through selective and biased narratives—a role that, in Tehran's view, reinforces both the moral and legal responsibility of governments supporting the group.

From Mersad to Ramadan: The Continuity of Indigenous Security

Mersad's central lesson was that the enemy does not abandon plans against Iran even during negotiations or after political agreements. That experience became the foundation of a security doctrine whose effectiveness, according to the article, was reaffirmed during the 12-Day War, the Dey 2025 unrest, and the Ramadan War.

Relying on indigenous technology, missile capabilities, cyber capacity, operational cohesion, and accumulated defense experience, Iran's Armed Forces were able to reshape the strategic equation confronting their adversaries.

Alongside military strength, active diplomacy, public support, the effective management of the Strait of Hormuz, calibrated responses to military aggression, operations against terrorist and separatist groups backed by the US and the Israeli regime, closer coordination within the Axis of Resistance, and the use of media and narrative warfare have together formed the pillars of Iran's indigenous security model, strengthening the country's position in an evolving multipolar international order.

The experience of Mersad also demonstrated that placing trust in international mechanisms without credible deterrence can prove costly. Lasting security, the article argues, can only be achieved through indigenous strength, continuous readiness, and a realistic understanding of the nature of the enemy.

Mersad's Narrative: Today's Frontline in Cognitive Warfare

Today, the significance of Mersad extends beyond its military dimension into the battle over historical narratives. According to the article, the enemy seeks to distort history, whitewash the crimes of the MKO, and reverse the roles of aggressor and defender, particularly in the minds of younger generations.

Narratives presented under labels such as the "Victims of 1988" or "Justice Seekers of the 1980s," if detached from the MKO's history of terrorism and the role of its Western backers, are described as part of a broader project of historical revisionism.

For that reason, documenting and accurately explaining the nature of the MKO, the role of Western governments in supporting it, and the security lessons of Operation Mersad is presented as a national imperative.

Just as Mersad turned the enemy's military ambitions into defeat on the battlefield, its accurate and well-documented narrative can neutralize today's cognitive warfare and psychological operations. In the modern era, victory is determined not only on the battlefield but also in the contest of narratives and public opinion. Mersad, the article concludes, should continue to be presented as a symbol of national unity, the strength of Iran's Armed Forces, and security rooted in domestic capabilities—a lasting model for confronting future military, political, and cognitive threats.