Iran Lobby

Exposing the Activities of the lobbies and appeasers of the Mullah's Dictatorship ruling Iran

Deal With Iran Regime Already Falling Apart

by

Failed AgreementJust when the Iran regime lobbying network led by the National Iranian American Council tries to make its case, its own masters in Tehran screw things up again it seems for them. Previously message points delivered by Trita Parsi and others were undercut by the regime’s top mullah when Ali Khamenei would call for America’s destruction and vowed to rebuff all efforts to derail Iran’s nuclear program.

Even after crafting a framework agreement with the P5+1 and hailing it as historic, the NIAC and other regime supporters again were faced with contradictions when Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency reported that foreign minister Javad Zarif and its nuclear chief told members of the Iranian parliament that the regime would begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal goes into effect.

The news accounts show the empty value of the framework and the lies being perpetuated by the NIAC that the regime truly wants a deal, but already promises to violate key provisions the minute it gets signed.

ccording to the FARS report, “Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers.”

The IR-8 centrifuges can enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses according to the regime.

Additionally, according to FARS, regime defense minister Hossein Dehqan said of the Lausanne Framework “There is no such agreement. Basically, inspection of military facilities is a red line and no inspection of any kind from such facilities would be accepted.”

So what are we to make out of the NIAC’s insistence that Iran’s mullahs are truly interested in peaceful nuclear development? It’s more likely we would believe in unicorns and the Loch Ness monster than the NIAC at this point.

With all of these revelations and statements coming out of Iran, the odds of a Congressional action against the framework and continuing economic sanctions are shrinking to the size of a pinhead with even House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) now mulling the odds of being able to derail the momentum building for Congressional review.

As Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee’s subpanel on the Middle East, said “Last week’s framework contemplates action by the United Nations Security Council. Surely if U.N. Security Council members should have a vote on sanctions relief, members of the United States Congress should as well.”

The support for continued economic sanctions got a boost inadvertently when Central Intelligence Agency Director John O. Brennan claimed Khamenei was persuaded to approve a deal because of the crippling effects of sanctions on Iran. While Brennan attempted to show this was motivation for the regime to compromise, it was in fact evidence of the what the regime is aiming for all along: relief from economic sanctions in order to flood billions of dollars back into the regime’s coffers as it supports four proxy wars.

The fact the regime’s leadership is already talking about violating the terms of the framework or simply ignoring them demonstrates the regime’s incompetence to make a deal and its commitment to preserving its nuclear infrastructure while getting what it most desperately needs right now, which is cold hard cash.

Already regime representatives are scrambling throughout the world in a mad dash to lock up deals to prop up its economy in anticipation of a final nuclear deal. This includes talks in China for oil sales, and invitations for direct foreign investment.

But as political support for the framework agreement begins to unravel, it is likely these moves for economic support will prove as ephemeral as NIAC’s logic and arguments in support of the regime.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

Iran Regime Rulers Undermine NIAC Claims…Again

by

Backstabbing BusinessmanIt seems the National Iranian American Council can’t catch a break from its Iran regime taskmasters. Just as NIAC is ramping up a new campaign to try and sway one or two Democratic Senators away from the building coalition in favor of the Corker-Menendez bill to place any nuclear agreement with Iran under Congressional review, the regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei and his handpicked president Hassan Rouhani blasted the U.S. version of the framework agreement.

Khamenei strongly denounced two bedrock American principles in nuclear negotiations declaring all economic sanctions from the U.S., European Union and United Nations had to be lifted immediately and military sites would remain strictly off-limits to foreign inspectors.

His comments echoed similar statements made by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, the regime’s nuclear chief and military officials, all of whom within the past few days have similarly denounced the U.S. position on the framework agreement and reiterated the regime’s red lines in the sand before the June 30th deadline for a final agreement.

The contradictions to U.S. positions extended to Central Intelligence Agency director John O. Brennan who believed Khamenei had been persuaded to approve a deal to avoid economic free fall in Iran, but Khamenei disputed that contention.

“There was no need to take a position,” Khamenei said. “The officials are saying that nothing has been done yet and nothing is obligatory. I neither agree nor disagree.”

Khamenei even took to Twitter claiming that an American fact sheet on the framework deal was “contrary to what was agreed.”

“We will not sign any agreement, unless all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the first day of the implementation of the deal,” Rouhani said during a ceremony marking Iran’s nuclear technology day, which celebrates the country’s nuclear achievements.

The fact that Khamenei is empowered under the regime’s constitution to be the final and authoritative voice on all foreign policy matters leaves its lobbyists like the NIAC in a pickle. While spokesmen such as Trita Parsi have been loud in praising the framework, they’ve been as mute as a monk taking vows of silence over the broad and vociferous denunciations of the same agreement by the Iran regime’s top leadership.

The imposition of a sanctions red-line by Khamenei may again sink nuclear talks for a third time and may very well be the eventual aim of Khamenei unless he gets what he desires most – the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions so he can replenish the coffers of a treasury bled dry by four proxy wars and a plummeting oil market.

“The supreme leader is saying all sanctions must be lifted as soon as a deal is signed, which is an impossible hard line,” said Michael Singh, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior director for Middle East affairs for the National Security Council. “President Obama can agree to almost anything, but he cannot promise immediate and total sanctions relief because that’s up to Congress and Congress is not going to do that.”

All of which explains NIAC’s desperation to persuade one or two Democratic Senators to switch and support the regime in order to avoid a veto override by Congress. Like the jury in the trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the object is to not defend on guilt or innocence, but to simply convince one jury to not impose the death penalty. The NIAC could care less what Iran’s leaders say in denouncing the deal, but what they care about is pressuring just one or two Senators enough to preserve the Administration’s ability to deliver a win for the mullahs.

The real prize for the regime is not nuclear weapons – that would be a bonus – the real win is the lifting of economic sanctions which have placed the mullahs in the uncomfortable position of trying to hold a lid on a dis-satisfied population asking the question: “Why not have regime change and make things better?”

It’s a question worth supporting.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Lobby Losing Grip on Congress

by

Trita parsi, greeting the mullah's delegation in Geneva during the nuclear negotiations -March 2015

Trita parsi, greeting the mullah’s delegation in Geneva during the nuclear negotiations -March 2015

The Iran regime’s lobbying and PR machine, notably led by the National Iranian American Council, invested significant resources in a blatant effort to lobby and influence members of Congress over the recent negotiations on the regime’s nuclear infrastructure.

The NIAC attempted to portray the negotiations as the only clear path towards peace and any member of Congress denigrating it was no better than a war monger. In response, Congress offered up the Corker-Menendez bill which gives Congress the power to keep economic sanctions in place while it reviewed any deal. Despite NIAC’s objections, it passed out of committee on a bipartisan vote.

Then NIAC was part of the “National Day of Action” involving delivering petitions to local Congressional offices. The effort produced sporadic selfies in scattered offices of volunteers, mostly Democrats already pledging to support the regime. In response, 47 Senate Republicans sent an open letter to the Iran regime promising to overturn any bad deal.

Itching for more failure, the NIAC marshalled its forces again for the stretch drive of talks and went on a media blitz and sent Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi to troll lobby bars in Lausanne, Switzerland. Instead, the House this time sent out a letter signed by 367 Democrats and Republicans, representing a veto-proof majority, calling for review and approval of any deal.

Even after talks concluded with a “framework” agreement that appears to be different in its terms if you read Iranian, American or French versions, NIAC continued to call it an historic agreement. On Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is on track to be the new Democratic Leader succeeding retiring Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), announced his support for the Corker-Menendez bill and called on Congress to review and halt any deal it deems bad.

His support is crucial and now probably gives Republicans the 60 votes necessary to override any veto from President Obama. Both houses of Congress now stand united in the need to review, debate, verify and approval or disapprove any final agreement coming out of P5+1 talks with the Iran regime.

Why did NIAC fail? Quite simply, it overpromised and underdelivered.

NIAC members, especially Trita Parsi, regularly mistakenly took positions throughout talks over the past three years that ended up having to be retracted or were proved wrong. Most notably were its claims about the Iran regime’s desire for peace, only to be routinely undercut by top mullah Ali Khamenei who gave his annual “Death to America” speech alongside demands that Iran retain all its nuclear infrastructure, immediate lifting of all economic sanctions and promise to keep developing ballistic missile technology.

In a way, you have to pity Trita Parsi and NIAC for having to work for verbal loose cannons like Khamenei who have all the subtlety of a freight train, but then again, Parsi and NIAC enjoy the perks of being mouthpieces for the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. i.e. Iran’s mullahs which explains how they can manage trips to Switzerland and an unlimited bar tab waiting for journalists to ask their opinions.

But has Iran’s mullahs really gotten the results expected from NIAC? If you judge success based on legislative wins in Congress, the answer has to be a resounding “NO!” The NIAC’s grip on Beltway reality grows looser, especially with new revelations from Breitbart News and others about the deep connections now being uncovered between NIAC and national security and foreign policy teams in the Obama administration.

The lack of disclosure by the administration has further tainted arguments made by NIAC for the deal as it becomes increasingly clear the organizations does not stand for the interests of Iranian Americans – four of whom remain in regime prisons without trial or charge – and instead is simply a cheap lobby for the mullahs.

We would urge Khamenei to get a refund from Parsi and cut his expense account for lack of results.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby – The Sales Job of NIAC

by

Trita Parsi on NIAC accompanying the Iranian delegation in Geneva - Iran talks March 2015

Trita Parsi on NIAC accompanying the Iranian delegation in Geneva – Iran talks March 2015

With a vague “framework” of a nuclear agreement with the Iran regime and the West now floating around, Iran’s mullahs are cracking the whip on their lobbyists and PR flaks to get the job done and sell what is arguably the smelliest deal since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Lenape tribe for 60 guilders.

 

Chief amongst the regime’s trusted mouthpieces is Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council, who was omnipresent at talks over the last two years and enjoyed close access to Iran regime team members, often being privy to details that virtually all Western journalists didn’t know about.

 

The close nature of the working relationship between NIAC and Iran’s mullahs has come under intense scrutiny, especially from several articles on Breitbart.com pointing to the cozy working relationship NIAC had with regime officials and most disturbing the recent revelation of a key member of the U.S. National Security Council having previously been a staff member at NIAC.

 

There has been no denial of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh’s prior work at NIAC from the Obama administration, although an effort has been made to downplay her involvement in nuclear negotiations, but the connections to NIAC are troubling when one examines the scope of NIAC’s sales effort aimed at heading off intervention by Congress in sinking the proposal and hiding its true nature.

 

Parsi and NIAC have attempted to show Iranians celebrating in the streets of Tehran in support of the deal, in a nation where protests are banned and public celebrations are orchestrated with the care of a Super Bowl halftime show.

 

Parsi and NIAC have attempted to show the framework embodies all of the safeguards the West and Congress have been asking for, but an examination by The New York Times Michael Gordon revealed vast differences between what the U.S. and Iranian delegations believe the agreement contains.

 

Parsi and NIAC have attempted to show there was support in Congress for the framework announcement by pointing to favorable statements from 19 Democratic Representatives, none of whom were part of the 367 bipartisan members objecting to agreement of any deal without Congressional review and approval. The 367 members represent a veto-proof majority in the House.

 

The NIAC has attempted to launch a grassroots effort by urging supporters to contact Senators since it already knows it has lost any chance in the House to sway a vote. Its only hope is to persuade the five or six Democratic Senators still undecided to fall in line with the mullahs and not vote for a sanctions review bill being offered by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN).

 

Oddly, while both House and Senate proposes give Congress the chance to review any deal, and hence allow the American people a voice in what is arguably one of the most important foreign policy issues facing global security and peace, NIAC argue strenuously against any input from the American public.

 

Why? What is NIAC so afraid of?

 

Like a used car salesman trying to move a clunker off the lot, NIAC is deathly afraid the American public might actually want to look under the hood of this framework and ask some basic questions such as “Can we really trust mullahs who have already violated three prior international agreements allowing inspections of secret nuclear facilities?”

 

The truth hurts the NIAC and its bosses in Tehran and it is doing everything it can to hide the truth and trust in simple slogans and fear mongering, warning that turning down this deal is tantamount to war with Iran; forgetting that a nuclear-armed extremist Islamic regime is the surest and shortest path to war.

 

Iran-When Is a Deal Not a Deal?

by

No Big DealThe Sunday opinion pages were filled with widely divergent views on the proposed “framework” agreement announced between the P5+1 group of nations and the Iran regime; ranging from cautious optimism to vehement denunciation. Oddly, the range of opinions detailed specific points allegedly within the announced framework, but were wildly different and contrasting.

It almost appeared that two agreements came out of Lausanne, Switzerland and in fact two agreements did emerge which is why members of Congress are condemning it on one hand and the regime is busy organizing street rallies for the cameras to make it look like celebrations in the streets of Tehran.

The New York Times’ Michael Gordon writes over the weekend that negotiators emerged with a surprisingly detailed outline of the agreement, “but one problem is that there are two versions.”

The only joint document issued publicly was a statement from the regime’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, and Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, which was an underwhelming seven paragraphs long. It contained a dozen so-called “parameters” meant to guide the next three months of talks.

Both the U.S. and Iran regime delegations released more detailed statements on the agreement which showed striking differences from both sides, betraying the lack of uniform consensus negotiators and the regime sought to portray publicly.

Of special note where differences in the expectations of how quickly economic sanctions would be lifted, as well as no descriptions on the type of research the regime will be allowed to undertake on centrifuges during the next 10 years of the proposed agreement; a pretty significant omission which has already killed three prior rounds of talks.

Other differences between the American and Iranian versions include an American contention that Iran had agreed to shrink its stockpile of uranium to 300 kilograms, but does not appear in the Iranian regime version.

The regime version includes a claim of nuclear cooperation between the regime and the six world powers to build nuclear power plants, research reactors and medical isotopes, a claim not even mentioned in the American statement. The American version says the regime would be able to conduct “limited” centrifuge research over the next 10 years, but the regime version removes the word “limited.”

The biggest difference is the speed at which economic sanctions will be lifted. The regime text calls for “immediately” lifting sanctions when the agreement is implemented while the American version describes a step-by-step process.

The fact that Zarif took to Twitter after both sides statements were issued and he dismissed the American framing of the outstanding issues as mere “spin” accurately portray the unspoken truth about this agreement, which is there is in fact no agreement at all. Zarif pounded that fact further when appeared on Iranian state television complaining to Secretary of State John Kerry that the American statement contradicted what was agreed to both sides.

With agreements like this, you’d hate to see what would happen if they actually disagreed with each other publicly.

There has been much speculation that these regime denunciations are designed to provide political cover for mullah’s President Hassan Rouhani as a hedge against so-called “hardliners” in the government, which is another fabrication since all power and authority over foreign policy agreements and treaties vests wholly and solely in the regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei.

Thereby rests the truth of what came out of Lausanne. While the regime and its lobbyists, such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, have been busy attempting to portray this as a historic milestone, they remain deathly agreed of more analysis by news media such as the one done by Gordon. If he can pierce the charade of these talks so quickly, what does that portend for the future of this “framework?”

It will likely end up on the trash heap of history as the three previous joint statements issued promising agreement on the broad outlines with only “technical” details to be worked out. In each case, a final agreement failed because the regime does not want anything detailed or specific put on paper.

The mullahs also want to retain all its’ nuclear infrastructure, but most importantly, they want economic sanctions lifted because the hammer blows on the economy caused by falling oil prices and heavy costs related to their funding of four separate proxy wars now in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are pushing the regime to the brink of collapse.

Unless the regime can pull the wool over the world’s eyes and convince everyone this is indeed a deal, then it risks failing again and for the mullahs, the stakes might mean their survival.

By Laura Carnahan

 

Iran – Same Story, Different Year for Regime Talks

by

Deal Sort of !

Deal Sort of !

There was much fanfare and speech making in Switzerland as negotiators proclaimed a framework deal had been reached with the Iranian regime. All that remained were the “technical details.” On closer examination, a more appropriate paraphrase might be “same stuff, different day.”

As predicted here, this framework deal is nothing more than a stalling tactic to allow all parties to claim a victory without really putting anything on the line and buy time to go back to the bargaining table again until the June 2015 deadline.

The key world that President Obama and regime officials such as mullah’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and even regime apologist-in-chief Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council all agree on and used in their respective statements was “If.”

If the details can be worked out. If the Iranian regime can be trusted to implement it. If inspectors are allowed unfettered access. If Iran doesn’t cheat. Never in the annals of diplomacy has the word “If” been used so often by so many people to describe such dramatically different viewpoints.

But critics of the so-called agreement, including Iranian dissidents closest to the reality on the ground, all chimed in and for them, no one was using the word “If.” For them, the reality of the Iran regime’s past history and track record led most of them to abandon any doubts and solidly believe the regime has no intention of honoring this agreement.

In the following weeks there will be plenty of commentary, detailed analysis and criticism of this proposal and the vague loopholes in it large enough to drive a battleship through, but what is worth reflection now is how we got here.

The one essential truth is that punishing economic sanctions, coupled with a revolution in oil production driving down global oil prices brought the Iranian regime to its knees and put its ruling mullahs right in the cross hairs of the same kind of discontent among Iran’s people that drove the last revolution.

The fragile hold the mullahs have was shown to be tenuous even as they ratcheted up the crackdowns at home and proxy wars abroad in an effort to suppress dissent and provide distractions for the world to take attention away from how precarious their hold on power can be.

Since 2002, sanctions and their effectiveness at bringing the regime back to the bargaining table again and again are undisputed. The regime has worked long and hard to create perceptions of Iran’s rise as a regional power a force to be reckoned with. It is a charade and illusion that has helped its cause at the bargaining table by forcing some nervous Western diplomats to capitulate to Iranian demands in a blatant effort of appeasement all too reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s notorious “Peace in our time” boast.

As Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the leading opposition group to the Iranian regime, said: “Nevertheless, a statement of generalities, lacking Khamenei’s signature and official approval, will never block the path to the regime obtaining nuclear weapons nor prevent its intrinsic deception.”

Which brings us to the last and most crucial point about this agreement, which is it is not an agreement unless Iran’s top cleric says so and given his most recent statements he might be smelling blood in the water to the extent the West has caved on many regime demands. Would Khamenei tank this framework in order to make another stab at getting everything he wants which is namely an immediate and complete lifting of all economic sanctions against Iran?

Khamenei knows that the secret to preserving the mullahs’ power is to lift the sanctions to demonstrate that the mullahs can do more than arrest, beat, torture and hang people.

It stands to reason though that with all of the “ifs” involved in this framework, we’re likely to be hashing out the same issues again in just a few more months.

By Michael Tomlinson

Regime Lobbyist NIAC Deep in U.S. Govt.

by

Sahar NowrouzzadehmThe news coming out of Switzerland reads exactly the same as it did last year and the year before that, with negotiators saying there has been progress and agreement reached on the pathway to move forward to finalize a deal. It’s Groundhog Day every day when it comes to the Iranian regime as it patiently waits for external pressures to keep building on the West to give in on its demands without giving anything up of substance.

 

Ironically the Iranian regime is desperate to ensure no details are leaked since it knows there would be global condemnation if everything was ever put on paper and put online. But through leaks and news stories we know the regime is on the verge of retaining its enrichment capacity through its centrifuges, they will be protected in a deep military bunker in Fordow, they get to keep their reactors, ballistic missile technology and a lifting of economic sanctions, as well as some ramp up in their activities near the end of the deal.

 

Providing the political cover and PR spin for this process over the past several years has been the loyal work of the National Iranian American Council, whose front-lobbyer is Trita Parsi and other staffers have been near constant fixtures in Lausanne hotel lobby bars, lounges and hallways plying their wares akin to the world’s oldest profession.

 

The ties between NIAC and the Iranian regime has been long established, including through a recent defamation lawsuit Parsi filed against a journalist, lost and in the process was forced to reveal sensitive emails and documents showing a much closer relationship between NIAC and high-ranking regime officials, including regime Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

 

As Eli Lake writes in a Bloomberg article: “In 2006, Zarif and Parsi tried to persuade journalists to write about a peace offer Iran had supposedly offered the George W. Bush administration after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet according to senior Bush administration officials, that 2003 offer was not a serious piece of diplomacy, and was not made through the channels by which the Bush administration communicated with Iran. Nonetheless, the narrative stuck that the Bush team blew a chance at a breakthrough in 2003.”

 

Secretary of State John Kerry repeated the Zarif line in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” earning three Pinocchios from The Washington Post which judged the claim dubious, but it was another indication of the efforts the regime was going to ensure it controlled the media narrative even while the American public and Congress grew more skeptical as sectarian violence throughout the region boiled over under Iran’s aggressive manipulation.

 

But the depth of NIAC’s efforts to manipulate the U.S. negotiating approach was revealed in a piece on Breitbart.com which revealed Sahar Nowrouzzadehm the National Security Council Director for Iran was a former staffer for NIAC as late as 2007 before joining the NSC in 2014.

 

The most galling revelation was her appearance on secure conference calls with President Obama and other top policy advisers including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz and National Security Adviser Susan Rice discussing negotiations with the Iranian regime.

 

The fact that a former staffer of a lobbying group for the Iranian regime is allowed to serve in a sensitive policy position as the U.S. strikes a nuclear deal raises some skepticism to why the U.S. has been so willing to accommodate Iranian regime’s demands.

 

It is in a way like allowing industry lobbyists to serve in the regulatory agencies overseeing them.

 

All of which raises an even larger issue. Has Nowrouzzadeh maintained contacts with Parsi and her former colleagues at NIAC? Has there been any insight or understanding to any journalists supportive of the regime, as a result? Any classified information discussed?

 

The furry of questions arising from this revelation is likely to raise concern for the Congressional investigators busy as they examine whatever deal eventually gets publicly released out of Switzerland, but what is worrying is that NIAC has been allowed to work tirelessly to cover for the regime and spread its influence deep into the heart of the U.S. government.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Essential Failure of the Iran Regime Lobby

by

 

The Essential Failure of the Iran Regime Lobby

The Essential Failure of the Iran Regime Lobby

In 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” We might add meeting a deadline for any negotiation with the Iranian regime to that list as the P5+1 talks in Switzerland ended without a framework agreement by a March 31st deadline; a deadline created when the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action was extended itself to November of 2014.

A more cynical person might conclude Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wanted to extend talks to April Fools’ Day just so he could dash world hopes for a nuclear agreement on a more auspicious date.

What is clear about these talks is they follow the exact same pattern as the three previous rounds of talks that have taken place. Between October of 2013 and today, the P5+1 have held three rounds of talks and at each point, agreements were announced to extend talks, claiming common ground and a pathway to agreement, but each subsequent session ended in failure.

But remember, this pattern of deception has been going on with the Iranian regime dating back to 2002 when the National Council of Resistance of Iran, one of the leading dissident groups against Iran’s mullahs, revealed the existence of secret nuclear facilities built at Natanz and Arak that had escaped notice by intelligence agencies and international inspectors.

Since that revelation, the Iranian regime had signed separate agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to restrict its activities and submit to inspection and in every case, broke those agreements shortly thereafter.

It is clear though that the success or failure of these talks rests on two very basic facts: 1) All Iranian decisions are ultimately up to the regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei; and 2) How desperate is the West to close a deal, even a horrific one?

That is the equation at play here and the one that Khamenei has been carefully measuring for the past decade. He has nudged along hopes of a deal, while at the same time giving up practically nothing, but gaining more advantage as time went by.

Iran achieved significant advancements on warhead design and triggering explosives at its Parchin military facility. It built and operated continuously thousands of centrifuges during talks, even adding newer and more advanced ones. It has developed and improved on ballistic missile technology bought from North Korea to deliver a nuclear warhead. Incredibly, all of this occurred while it discussed nuclear peace.

At the same time Khamenei has maneuvered proxies to make gains in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and play the U.S. against itself throughout the region and building on the false perception that Iran was a force to be reckoned with. The whole house of cards almost collapsed last year with the plummeting price of crude oil, draining regime coffers while it was shoveling money out the door to support Hezbollah, Houthi rebels and Shiite militia. Unfortunately the JPOA agreement saved the mullahs’ bacon by releasing billions in frozen funds.

Now Khamenei sees a final opportunity to snooker the world again and take advantage of a perceived desperation by the White House to close a foreign policy win as a legacy achievement; which is why he is insisting on an immediate and full suspension of all U.N. sanctions against Iran once an agreement is signed and an allowance for Iran to ramp up its nuclear activities near the end of the monitoring period.

If we can also believe news reports from the Associated Press and others, the P5+1 has already agreed to allow the regime to continue to operate thousands of centrifuges in its Fordo nuclear reactor buried deep in a secure bunker. Why a civilian nuclear program needs to operate in a military bunker is obviously not a point of concern it seems.

But what this ultimately does show is that even as the regime and its allies such as the National Iranian American Council spin mightily away, the one thing they cannot overcome is the abstinence of Khamenei and his determination that the regime gets everything it wants.

Khamenei’s arroghbance is likely to prove the regime’s downfall as the belief has grown in Congress and among the American people that the Iranian regime cannot be trusted and anything put down on paper is worthless given the regime’s past track record; which is why even though a joint communique is likely to be issued today detailing how both sides have found much common ground and will work towards the June 30 deadline, that too will prove to be a failure like so many others and we’ll be right back here saying the same thing on July 1st.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby – Last Ditch Lobbying By NIAC

by

Swiss HotelWill March 31st bring about a capitulation to Iran’s mullahs or will common sense and courage prevail in the face of naked aggression and terror? We will soon find out, but what is clear is that the Iran regime’s lobbying and PR allies are working overtime in a last ditch attempt to save the mullahs from what could be another defeat at the bargaining table after three fruitless years of talks.

 

Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed filed an interesting and illuminating story on the lobbying and spinning efforts being put on by operatives of the National Iranian American Council. Well-known regime apologists Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi have been near constant figures in the hallways, bars, lounges and lobbies of the hotels where talks have been taking place in Switzerland.

 

With all the time they’ve been spending there, you might think they’re just trying to garner more frequent flyer miles, but their ambitions are deadly serious; trying to hoodwink the international media into believing Iran’s mullahs are a lovable bunch and to gloss over the rapid conquest of four of Iran’s neighbors by Iranian proxies and terror groups.

 

As Gray puts it “Marashi and Parsi are often well-informed on the details from the negotiations and seen as close to the Iranian negotiating team as well as to the American side.”

 

All of which strikes many as more evidence of the close coordination between the NIAC and its masters from Tehran who are obviously supplying them with talking points, key details about the negotiations and key messages to deliver to the media. It’s an ironic situation since the Obama administration has worked hard to keep details from leaking and providing any specific information to Congress or the American people.

 

But the façade of the regime’s public face took another hit when Amir Hossein Motaghi, a close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, mullah’s president, sought political asylum in Switzerland after traveling there for the talks.

 

Motaghi took the opportunity to go on an opposition channel, to explain his decision as well as shine a light on the techniques the regime uses in its PR campaign, including sending accredited Iranian journalists who are in fact agents of the regime ensuring only approved news is sent back home for domestic consumption.

 

So while Parsi and Marashi continue to prowl the hotel bars to ply their wares on journalists, it is worth noting that their efforts in the U.S. have largely fallen on deaf ears as Congress prepares to engage the White House if a framework comes out these talks. A veto-proof, bipartisan majority in the House has already signaled its intent to scrutinize any deal and withhold lifting any economic sanctions until it reviews every last detail.

 

Iran’s mullahs know this might be their final last gasp for relief from economic sanctions which is why they are keeping Parsi and Marashi strolling the bars and hallways like a pair of cads looking to pick up coeds after closing hours.

 

Trita Parsi of NIAC Lobbies for Iran

by

Trita Parsi has had close working relationship with Javad Zarif, when he was Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations. In a deposition, Parsi stated he only communicated in 2006 with Zarif in order to “interview him.” But this is not true. Emails made public demonstrate that Parsi and Zarif collaborated on numerous political issues. Parsi publicly distributed an Iranian regime document to influence US policy. He made arrangements for the ambassador to participate in a conference on Capitol Hill and to meet members of Congress, and sought the ambassador’s council regarding the feasibility of a new Persian Gulf security arrangement. About the collusion between Parsi and Zarif, a former Associate Deputy Director of the FBI said Parsi should have been registered as a foreign agent of Iran. Arizona Senator Jon Kyl contacted the US Justice Department, urging an investigation of Parsi.

Trita Parsi has had close working relationship with Javad Zarif, when he was Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations. In a deposition, Parsi stated he only communicated in 2006 with Zarif in order to “interview him.” But this is not true.
Emails made public demonstrate that Parsi and Zarif collaborated on numerous political issues. Parsi publicly distributed an Iranian regime document to influence US policy. He made arrangements for the ambassador to participate in a conference on Capitol Hill and to meet members of Congress, and sought the ambassador’s council regarding the feasibility of a new Persian Gulf security arrangement.
About the collusion between Parsi and Zarif, a former Associate Deputy Director of the FBI said Parsi should have been registered as a foreign agent of Iran. Arizona Senator Jon Kyl contacted the US Justice Department, urging an investigation of Parsi.

In an article published at the American Thinker titled “Friends of Iran in the United States” Michael Curtis studies Trita Parsi and his lobby firm, NIAC and how they are acting in favor of the mullahs by demanding annihilation of the nuclear related sanctions on Iran. Given the extent of activities by the Iranian lobby, the entire article is published below for our readers.

“On February 19, 2015, a full-page ad was published in the New York Times by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) opposing the invitation given to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.  It asked the question: “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

The ad did not disclose that the founder and president of the organization, Trita Parsi, was an Iranian-Swedish citizen who holds a Green Card and has had links with Iranian authorities, especially the Iranian defense minister, Javad Zarif.  Those links were held to be extremely close by a critic, Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian-American journalist and human rights activist who left Iran in 1981 and lives in Arizona.  He wrote that NIAC, and its leader Parsi, are an organization engaged in lobbying Congress on behalf of a foreign government – namely, that of Iran.

The invitation to Netanyahu and his speech to Congress became the occasion for dramatic political theater by Team Obama and its supporters, who disliked the Israeli’s criticism of the Obama administration’s attitude toward Iran.  Nothing was said by that team or in the mainstream media on the question of whether the NIAC had lobbied or tried to lobby Congress or had any impact on the current policy of the Obama administration in negotiating with Iran.

In his articles, Daioleslam (Dia) claimed that the NIAC, and former Congressman Bob Ney, who was associated with it, were helping Iran to manipulate U.S. policy on Iran’s behalf.  Among other issues, in 2007, the organization had lobbied to prevent U.S. funds going to democratic elements in Iran.  The NIAC brought a lawsuit in May 2008 in the attempt to halt Daioleslam’s further criticism of the Iranian regime.  But it delayed producing, and sometimes failed to produce, necessary information on its computers, calendar entries, and e-mails.  In addition, the assistant director of the NIAC changed some files from references to “lobbying” to “legislative direct.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge John Bates) in September 2012 dismissed the lawsuit.  The Court found that the NIAC had given false information to it, and it ordered the NIAC to pay Daioleslam’s legal expenses – about $184,000.  It held that the work of the NIAC and its founder, Trita Parsi, was not inconsistent with the idea that it was “first and foremost an advocate for the regime.”  Consequently, Daioleslam’s statement could not be considered defamatory.

The court in July 2010 had ordered NIAC three times to submit its server for inspection to determine if all documents had been given to it, and complained that additional computers in the network of the NIAC had not been produced.  The court found that the NIAC had withheld 5,500 e-mails written by its senior officials.  It is unclear whether this refusal or inability to produce documents was deliberate or result or incompetence.

The decision of the District Court was upheld by the opinion of two circuit judges and a senior circuit judge in the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a decision on February 10, 2015.  The Court of Appeals approved the opinion of the District Court that the NIAC was involved in systematic abuse of the legal discovery process and made false declarations to the court.

The court held that the NIAC had “flouted multiple court orders” and taken “inexcusable” action in delaying delivery of documents to during the lawsuit that it had itself brought, and therefore had driven up the costs imposed on the Daioleslam.  It referred to the NAIC’s conduct as “dilatory, dishonest, and intransigent.”

Ironically, this case is somewhat similar to other events current in Washington where individuals have refused to provide or have misplaced official documents or have given incomplete records after requests by members of Congress for full documentation.

The Court did not finally decide if the NIAC had violated the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  The statute, enacted in 1938, requires that persons acting as agents of foreign authorities in a political or quasi-political capacity make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with a foreign entity.  Action of this kind is legally different from advocating better ties with a foreign entity, because this would be in the interests of the U.S.

The NIAC was founded in 2002 by Trita Parsi, who said it would enable Iranian-Americans to condemn the 9/11 attacks.  It is organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and states that it is non-partisan and does not receive funds from the Iranian government or from the United States government.  It says it is dedicated to advancing the interests of the Iranian-American community on civic, cultural, and political issues.  It speaks on behalf of that community to which it refers as “one of the most highly educated minority groups in the U.S.”

The founder and president of the NIAC has been invited to the White House, has arranged meetings between the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations and members of Congress, and given talks at the CIA.  He has done so without registering as an agent of a foreign power.

The NIAC also expresses its “vision” to work to ensure that human rights are upheld in Iran and that civil rights are protected in the U.S.  It received funds, almost $200,000, from the National  Endowment for Democracy.

More significantly, the NIAC has pressed for an end to international sanctions on Iran.  The NIAC has also played a partisan role in U.S. and international politics.  It lobbied against the appointment of Dennis Ross to the National Security Council.  The documents revealed to the Court that Parsi had helped prepare reports about Iran and helped send them to Atieh Company in Tehran, which paid Parsi for his work.

One can only hope that the NIAC was not consulted in the current negotiations with Iran on nuclear issues.”

By Michael Curtis, published at American Thinker