Maybe people are just looking for a potent anti-regime group to support, and the MEK is the most visible group. Perhaps an alternative needs to be created? People may be trying to acheive regime change, and they may not be to particular about the specifics. Although, making such a compromise now could lead to a regrettable situation in the future.
1) We allied ourselves with the Soviet tyrants in World War II. In truth, there really wasn't an option, but we did end up fighting the Soviets for most of the rest of the century in a war that wasn't totally cold.
2) We allied ourselves with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets (again). Afghanistan is a crucial piece of real estate, then and now. We probably could have armed someone else. Sending American troops in could have touched off World War III, so we didn't do it for obvious reasons. Anyway, we won this war too, but Afghanistan ended up being mired in civil war in the 1990's, and finally they were liberated by the American-led force in 2001-present. It would be dubious to suggest that Islamic terror wouldn'tbe what it is today if we didn't ally ourselves with bin Laden. Bin Laden is just a figurehead, a spokesman, really; he isn't the brains behind the attacks and the long-term strategy. So, our former ally is now our #1 enemy.
3) At about the same time, we sided with Iraq against Iran in their bloody war of 1980-88. Not that it did much good, Saddam lost that war, the first of three consecutive wars that he would lose, one with the Americans (though little real support, of course), and two against. I understand that we didn't want Iran to expand and take over Iraq (interestingly enough, that is exactly what Iran is doing today, with the help of their subsidiary, Syria), but still...
An interesting pattern emerges here: In example #1, regime change occured in both the Axis powers, and the Soviet Empire. In #2, regime change in Afghanistan twice since our war there (thanks to our "ally" Pakistan). In #3, regime change in occuring in Iraq, and is about to (we all hope!) change in Iran, too. I don't know that it means anything, that it all these questionable conflicts we've been involved in, that regime change has come about. Of course, it's not like the US didn't encourage regime change :-)
I guess the point of all this is - supporting the MEK now in some way might seem to be a good idea right now to deal with the mammoth Iranian problem - but in the long run, it might put you back right where you started.
Or, even more simply - be very careful and very cautious. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Interesting, Iran producing torpedoes. The only practical use for such torpedoes, that I can think of, is to try to sink a blockade. Or, it could just be a propaganda stunt - "Hey, you Americans and Zionists, don't even try it - you'll drown in your own blood."
Also interesting is the drones, in that Iran did not turn on their radars, and won't be doing so indefinitely. It also means that if a fleet of F-16's or F/A 18's comes over to say hello, they won't know it until it's too late. Hopefully, though, no bombs will be necessary to acheive regime change.
The US-MEK alliance sounds bad in Iran and I do not think any body in Iran is in favor of that move