American-Iranian Council

NIAC Discussion on Geopolitical Implications of Iran Deal or shameful Lobbying for mullah

June 27, 2015 by admin

Iran Lobby on the Nuclear Discussions

In an article published on Center for Security Policy, written by Caitlin Anglemier, The National Iranian American Council (NIAC)’s usual approach in serving as Iran’s lobby in Washington D.C. has been highlighted. Excerpts from this article are published here to describe the path the Iranian lobby and fellow travelers are talking while we are getting very close to the June 30th self claimed nuclear talks deadline.

On June 25, NIAC held a discussion on “The Geopolitical Implications of an Iran Deal”. The panel of speakers included: Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic and National Journal; Fred Kaplan, war stories columnist for Slate; Dr. Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council; and Barbara Slavin, South Asia Center senior fellow for the Atlantic Council, known within the Iranian community for appeasing the mullahs.

In her article, Caitlin Anglemier reports: “The talk began with a discussion on how foreign policy has become a primary focus of the Republican party and how generally, the Democratic party tends to place more emphasis on social and economic issues. The discussion then drifted towards discussing the negotiation talks themselves and the ten-year time period aspect. The panel acknowledged the concern that many have, which is that the ten-year period is just delaying the inevitable truth that Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon within a year. But the panel emphasized the importance of those ten years. While that negative viewpoint is out there, why not try to focus on the time positively and the opportunity it provides for even more talks, negotiations, and compromising?

In trying to frame the ten-year period in such a positive manner, the NIAC panel attempted to depict a reality that is simply not accurate. Solely based on how the nuclear deal negotiations have gone so far, it would be foolish to think that ten years of talks and additional demands would go any better than what has transpired-which has not been good at all.”

The report continues: “The discussion then moved to reflecting on the implications of all the money involved in the deal talks. “…[the US] will have released a total of $11.9 billion to the Islamic Republic [of Iran] by the time nuclear talks are scheduled to end in June, according to figures provided by the State Department”. The panel seemed to indicate that if a deal is successfully reached, Iran would utilize the freedom gained from lifted sanctions as well as the cash assets given from the United States to benefit the people of Iran. The panel’s theory was that if Iran continued, over the next ten years, to send money overseas for alternative projects, the people of Iran would start questioning the government and would become upset. In the past, Iran has used the funds it had to fund terrorism and terrorist organizations. If the country has placed an emphasis on aiding terrorism over taking care of its people in the past, why would that change after a new deal?”

It is also a fact that a big chunk of Iran’s economy is in the hands of IRGC, which is the main force behind all the nuclear activities, Regime’s meddling in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc (the Quds force), and therefore it goes without saying that all the money that will return to Iran will be channeled in the same manor it did before.

Caitlin Anglemier refers to the last part of the discussion about another tactic used by the Iranian lobby in counting “benefits of collaborations” with the Iranian regime on the fight against ISIS. She says: The last part of the discussion before questioning commenced revolved around the “misfortunate reality” that the US can’t work in alliance with Iran to combat the Islamic State. The panel emphasized how the Islamic State is well aware of the fact that all of its major opponents are at war with one another, and has already taken advantage of this situation. At first glance it does seem that Iran has taken steps towards combatting the Islamic State. However, Iran is actually continuing to fund Hezbollah as well as Shia tribes and militias. While the US clearly wants to abolish the Islamic State, this must be accomplished without simultaneously strengthening Iran and its militant connections. This hypothetical alliance with Iran against IS could never manifest itself in reality.”

Referring to the questions about the the exact details of the deal talks and their implications, she writes: “More importantly, even if we were able to compromise and establish a negotiation with Iran on their desires and demands, we have no reason to believe that they will be honest and follow through on said demands in the future. Therefore, this essentially indicates that a “deal” is just a blissfully ignorant façade.

Conclusive, the discussion was polite, peaceful, and very informative. It would be easy to imagine a listener walking away with a positive mental image of Iran and the extensive benefits a successful nuclear deal agreement. However, we must take it upon ourselves to not be so easily deceived. Pursuing an agreement with Iran in nuclear talks is not only a waste of time and resources, it would result in directly providing Iran with significant relief from sanctions as well as billions of dollars. And contrary to what some apparently believe, these billions will in fact not be used towards benefiting the wellbeing of the Iranian citizens, but will continue to be used in funding terrorism and terrorist organizations.

We must abandon these attempts at negotiations with Iran before we make ourselves out to be even greater pushovers than we have already portrayed.”

Iran Lobby Wrong on Nuclear Deal Stabilizing Region

June 11, 2015 by admin

One of the more extraordinary leaps of logic being propagated by the Iran lobby is that a completed nuclear agreement between the Iran regime and the P5+1 group of nations would help stabilize the Middle East and allow the U.S. to refocus and rebalance on more urgent matters. This flight of fancy was espoused by Mark Fitzpatrick, the director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), and Trita Parsi, president of the regime’s chief cheerleading squad at the National Iranian American Council.

The claim being made by the two was that the U.S. could work with Iran’s mullahs on issues such as anti-narcotics trafficking, poverty alleviation, female empowerment and halting the spread of the Islamic State.

Now let’s think about that for a moment. They are contending that a regime with some of the highest narcotics addiction rates in the world and one of the largest traffickers in illicit drugs is somehow going to be a force for change in drugs?

They are contending that a regime with an economy in the tank due to the funding of three proxy wars Syria, Iraq and Yemen and terror groups such as Hezbollah and Shiite militias is somehow going to fight poverty? Especially when it ranks as one of the most corrupt places to do business with regime elites and mullahs’ families skimming off the top everywhere?

They are contending that a regime that empowers the Basij paramilitary to enforce strict adherence to Sharia laws such as prohibitions on women driving alone or holding hands in public by beating them and throwing acid on their faces is best equipped to empower women? Let’s not forget recent passage of laws allowing for child marriages as young as 14 years old and misogynist policies such as allowing fathers to marry their stepdaughters.

And they are contending that Iran can halt the spread of ISIS when it was its own policies that gave birth to ISIS by intervening in Syria and pouring billions of dollars in arms and fighters to prop up Assad and allow Syrian forces to drive out moderate rebel forces and encourage the rapid rise of extremist terror groups to form ISIS.

One would have to be a dolt to think these two have come up with a magic elixir to solve all the problems of the Middle East by granting Iran a deal enriching it with billions of dollars while allowing it to continue development of nuclear weapons without inspection of its military sites.

Iran’s chief rival, Saudi Arabia, has already taken dramatic steps to counter Iranian moves by securing a nuclear development deal of its own with South Korea and an air campaign aimed at defeating Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

How does any of this provide a sense of stability and security in the Middle East when Iran’s actions lie at the heart of some of the greatest human misery and suffering now being felt on the planet today?

Let’s not even mention Iran’s abhorrent human rights record which has been widely and loudly condemned by Amnesty International and the UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed, who is mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor and report on the situation in Iran.

It’s a farcical proposition by Parsi and Fitzpatrick, but nothing new with only two weeks left before the self-imposed June 30^th deadline for a nuclear agreement as they step up the Iran lobby’s efforts to sell even the most threadbare of Persian carpet ideas.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Working for $120 Billion Paycheck

June 11, 2015 by admin

Only someone with a doctorate in voodoo economics would equate the Iran regime’s “resistance economy” as a “blueprint for economic reform,” but that is exactly what Bijan Khajehpour of the Atieh International Consultancy is advocating in remarks he made at the Wilson Center.

The call for a “resistance economy” designed to withstand the impacts of economic sanctions imposed on Iran for its clandestine nuclear program was issued by the regime’s leader Ali Khamenei in February 2014, in which he called on the government of Hassan Rouhani to expand production and export of knowledge-based products, increase domestic production of strategic goods and develop markets in neighboring countries. He also urged greater privatization and increased exports of electricity, gas, petrochemical and oil by-products instead of crude oil and other raw materials.

How has that gone for Iran’s mullahs so far? Iran’s gross domestic product (GDP) has steadily declined the last three quarters from 4.4 percent, to 3.7 percent and now at an anemic 2.8 percent.

Khajehpour attempted to explain away the decline by blaming economic sanctions, government mismanagement, corruption, and former president Ahmadinejad’s brand of populist economic policies. The one variable he left out was Iran’s diversion of billions of scarce dollars to support proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, as well as terror groups such as Hezbollah.

U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, estimated Iran spends $6 billion annually on propping up Assad’s government. Other experts put the number even higher. Nadim Shehadi, the director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University, said his research shows that Iran spent between $14 and $15 billion in military and economic aid to the Damascus regime in 2012 and 2013, even though Iran’s banks and businesses were cut off from the international financial system.

All of which comes on the heel of fresh calls by Assad for even more fighters and equipment he needs to combat rebels which Iran has met with the delivery of 15,000 new soldiers to fight for Syria. Far from being a resistance economy, Iran has been on a war footing for the past two years, all of which is fighting unrelated to its nuclear program.

It is hard to see how Khajehpour can overlook these staggering costs and contend Iran’s economy rebound as it throws more men, cash and expensive military hardware at its neighbors.

And you can’t even blame the declining price of oil on the world market for Iran’s economic problems either. Iran has a fairly diversified economy, in which oil accounts for only 23 percent of GDP. The largest contributor to the GDP is services (around 50 percent of total output), which means Iran’s primary drivers of its economy are its people.

These are the same people who are regularly subjected to street justice by the Basij paramilitary, who are thrown into prison for posted offending or critical comments on social media, who see scions of the mullahs’ race around the streets of Tehran in expensive foreign cars while they languish in economic purgatory.

Most incredibly of all, Khajehpour tried to make the argument that the estimated $120 billion in frozen Iranian assets that would be repatriated in the event of a nuclear deal would actually diminish the revenues of such corrupt actors within Iran because they no longer would have a monopoly on what commodities went in and out of Iran.

While it is not the dumbest statement ever made, it certainly ranks as one of the least believable; given the enormous pressure the regime’s mullahs are under to keep Assad afloat, a tight rein on the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and Houthi-rebel controlled Yemen.

If Khajehpour thinks the mullahs will not use that $120 billion to prop up their puppets, then he only reveals his true colors as a regime apologist and unabashed cheerleader.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Importance of Linking Iran Sanctions and Human Rights

June 9, 2015 by admin

Bijan Khajehpour

Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have put forward an amendment to the defense budget that would extend congressional sanctions against the Iran regime for 10 additional years. The amendment is aimed at extending the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, currently set to expire at the end of 2016, to the end of 2026.

The amendment is an important step in resetting the expectations associated with the Iran regime’s nuclear weapons program because it links it to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and human rights abuses; a significant step towards properly addressing the central issues with the regime’s conduct towards the world.

The regime’s chief cheerleaders, the National Iranian American Council, predictably were quick to denounce the legislation, warning that passage of the bill would derail ongoing negotiations. The NIAC’s statement was noteworthy for a few things, namely that it placed the burden of completion of a deal on the U.S. and not the regime.

“There are legitimate questions about whether the U.S. will be able to deliver on the terms for sanctions relief under a nuclear deal, and the passage of this amendment would give credence to those concerns,” the NIAC statement said.

It is a remarkable sentence because it firmly ignores the chief obstacle to any agreement between the West and Iran, which is Iran’s historic inability to live up to any of its international agreements. As recently as last month, Iran has steadfastly refused to answer outstanding questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program.

On top of that omission are repeated comments by Iran’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei, who has reiterated publicly his opposition to allowing access to any Iranian military facility or Iranian nuclear scientists by international inspectors.

This follows continued denials by Iran that it is involved in proxy wars being waged in Syria and Yemen, not to mention its control of Shiite militias in Iraq that are now being accused of reprisal sectarian killings against Sunni Muslim villagers, all of which points to a disturbing and repeated pattern of deception, denial and distrust.

The action by Senators Kirk and Menendez comes after passage of legislation signed by President Obama and over the vigorous objections of NIAC authorizing congressional review of any nuclear agreement reached with Iran.

This latest bill from Kirk and Menendez addresses a glaring hole in current negotiations, which is the failure of negotiators to hold Iran’s human rights conduct accountable, as well as including the regime’s capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon well outside their neighborhood and threaten Europe and Asia.

The NIAC and the rest of the Iran lobby have fought hard to keep these things out of negotiations because they know full well their inclusion would almost certainly doom Iran’s hopes of securing a deal and lift economic sanctions and flood the regime with billions in new cash and investment.

The proposed amendment is not a deal breaker for the West as much as it is a safety clause assuring the West does not deliver a bad deal that could come back to haunt them.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Dangling Dangerous Dollars

June 9, 2015 by admin

With the June 30 deadline looming for the third round of nuclear talks between the P5+1 group of nations and the Iran regime, the news media have picked up steam in discussing the possibility of foreign companies jockeying for position in investing in Iran once a deal is completed.

But in the immortal words of Greek fabulist Aesop “do not count your chickens before they are hatched.” More than a cliché, they are prudent and appropriate words for any companies looking to take advantage of a newly opened market in Iran.

USA Today ran a story looking at visiting business delegations streaming into Tehran, all with an eye towards the completion of these talks and a signing of a deal. The vast majority of these companies are European with only a few American firms kicking the tires of an open Iranian market.

“Even if all sanctions are lifted, there will still be blacklists of Iranian companies that Western companies should avoid,” said Bijan Khajehpour of Atieh International, a consulting firm in Vienna that works to bring companies into the Iranian market. “Assets in the economy controlled by the semi-state organizations are gradually approaching the size of government.”

But Khajehpour is wrong when he says that “developing Iran’s economy will lead to greater peace, political reform and moderation by its revolutionary government” because Khajehpour has a long record of associating with supporters and lobbyists of the Iran regime, including Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, in efforts to direct companies and investment into Iran.

Khajehpour and his firm – co-founded with his wife Pari Namazi who is the sister of Siamak Namazi a close confidante of Parsi – have been boldly supportive of the regime in advocating for the lifting of economic sanctions by working to steer greater interest by foreign companies in Iran. The effort is designed to create a fait accompli and build global momentum towards the “inevitability” of a nuclear deal.

While the potential size of the Iranian market is significant with 81 million people, the obstacles are daunting irrespective of what happens at the negotiating table in Switzerland. For one thing, Iran ranks in the top 40 of most corrupt nations according to Transparency International; listed at 136, tied with Nigeria and Cameroon, with corruption running rampant throughout Iran’s government with much of the nation’s wealth diverted to the mullahs who control the country and their families.

Another facet of this corruption is the shell-company ownership of vast sectors of the Iranian economy by quasi-governmental entities such as Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps military which controls nearly a tenth of the entire nation’s economy by some estimates. The IRGC has made no bones about its desire to see a completed nuclear deal because of the vast wealth that would be pumped into its coffers at a crucial time when it has expended billions of dollars in propping up the Syrian regime, Shiite militias in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The IRGC also recognizes that unless it can secure a deal and have foreign investment flow back in, disaffected Iranians suffering under the mismanagement and general ineptness of the mullahs might very well choose regime change in order to get their Apple iPhones and McDonald’s Big Macs.

The true scope of the conundrum facing Western companies revolves around the central idea of why would you want to invest billions in a corrupt regime who’s very actions might turn all those billions into lost assets in the likelihood that Iran’s mullahs continue their nuclear development in secret as they did before?

Every public hanging, arrest of a religious minority, acid attack on a woman, or assault by Shiite militia poisons the well so to speak and makes it untenable for any politician to give the mullahs what they want, especially in an election cycle.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Delusional Trita Parsi

April 23, 2015 by admin

Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council and apologist-in-chief for the Iran regime, published an opinion piece that may very well be regarded as one of the most delusional pieces of editorial copy written since British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain brought back the Munich Agreement after meeting with Adolf Hitler in 1938.

The Munich Agreement permitted Nazi Germany to effectively annex large portions of then Czechoslovakia and is widely regarded as the most significant example of failed appeasement in modern times. Paris’ editorial rivals that infamous document because he seeks to rationalize the regime’s actions and portrays a post-nuclear Iran as living in peace and harmony with its neighbors.

The most glaring failed piece of logic he attempts to push is the idea that regime top mullah Ali Khamenei is ideologically flexible and committed to the idea of not wanting conflict with the West.

Let’s think about that statement for a minute. Parsi says Khamenei does not want conflict with the West?

The same Khamenei that has led annual “Death to America” chants on national television? The same Khamenei who authorized the incursion of Iranian military forces into Syria, Iraq and Yemen? The same Khamenei who supported the use of Revolutionary Guard troops and Quds Force operatives to target and kill American and coalition personnel during the Iraq war?

Obviously Parsi also believes in the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot and aliens. It is amusing though when Parsi characterizes Khamenei as offering “heroic flexibility,” especially when considering less than 24 hours after the framework deal was announced in Geneva, Khamenei went on TV to denounce its terms and accuse the U.S. of lying. Sounds pretty flexible to me.

Parsi then charts a torturous path of logic from revolutionary Iran to 9/11 terror attacks trying to portray the regime as a helpful and willing ally to the U.S. He again conveniently leaves out facts such as Iran’s funding of terror groups such as Hezbollah involved in kidnapping and bombing attacks of Americans, including the infamous Marine barracks attack in Beirut.

Parsi also leaves out that Tehran’s race to the bomb really didn’t take off until the beginning of the rapprochement offered by the Obama administration and the subsequent quadrupling of centrifuges for enriching uranium, maybe in a heretofore secret bunker at Fordo that was not known to Western intelligence agencies until disclosed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the leading dissident groups to the regime.

Even more incredible is Parsi’s framing of this period as a “truce” between the U.S. and Iran post-framework announcement, serving as a calm period for the careful finalization of a nuclear accord. What makes this statement frankly insipid are recent events in Yemen where Iran’s overthrow of the government there has led to a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations in an unheard of before Arab coalition and the movement of massive U.S. naval assets, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, into the Gulf of Aden to interdict Iranian vessels carrying suspected arms to the Houthis.

How Parsi can claim this period as a “truce” while a confrontation brews on the high seas between the U.S. and Iran is beyond imagination.

The real “truce” the mullahs want from the U.S. is not so much a stop in the adversarial relationship against the West they have nurtured for the past three decades, but rather a truce in the crushing economic sanctions placing their hold over the Iranian people in jeopardy. The mullahs would much rather divert their resources to solidifying their hold over their newly acquired territory and expanding their military rather than constantly having to evade the West.

This global strategy is explained away by Parsi when he claims Iran has no ambitions in Syria and that removal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be devastating for peace options. It is the same rhetoric the mullahs use in Iraq when describing the necessity of intervention against ISIS.

The mullahs have created these shadow terrors as a way of engineering access for their military to intervene in wars they helped initiate in the first place. It’s like asking an arsonist to come put out the fires he started.

The one thing Parsi does get right is that “the diplomacy deficit the whole region suffers from exacerbates each of these more localized problems.”

He just neglects to mention that Iran is the one that lacks diplomacy, instead relying on military force, terrorist proxies and militias to exert its will and shape its foreign policy. It bears the question for Parsi; if Tehran was so interested in diplomacy, why not join in the global call to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria? Why not urge the Houthis to negotiate with the Yemen government? Why not urge a joint Sunni-Shia coalition government in Baghdad to build a common future for all Iraqis?

A nuclear deal with Iran, without connecting agreements to restrain Iran’s most troublesome actions throughout the region makes any future problematic. Unless Iran’s mullahs are brought to heel, no agreement will ensure a future of peace, only one of Iranian hegemony.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby – The Sales Job of NIAC

April 7, 2015 by admin

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.

Trita Parsi of NIAC Lobbies for Iran

March 29, 2015 by admin

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

Iran lobby-Why Does NIAC Oppose Democracy?

March 9, 2015 by admin

It is a curious thing. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) claims to advocate on behalf of the Iranian American interests, but virtually all of its public and media outreach efforts are devoted towards supporting whatever happens to be the line of the day for the Mullah’s regime in Iran.

Okay, maybe something is changed about its mission statement and hasn’t made it to the “About Us” section of their website. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt about their aims, but what still remains puzzling is the NIAC’s almost pathological aversion to democracy.

In the run up to the March 24th deadline for a framework agreement between the Iranian regime and the P5+1 group of nations – a too-early deadline accidentally foisted by NIAC and the Iranian lobby’s own actions – the NIAC has steadily maintained that any agreement not be subject to review and vote by Congress.

It is a curious position to take on several levels. First and foremost, the NIAC might have trouble letting go of the Iranian model of government which tends to default to the autocratic side where Iran’s Supreme Leader, in this case top mullah Ali Khamenei, has sole authority over foreign policy and military matters, including any treaty or international agreement.

Contrary to that model, the U.S. Constitution in Article II, section 2, provides that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” The Constitution’s framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate’s advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treaty making process.

It is a provision articulated by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers no. 75 and represents a cornerstone of American policy making over the last 200 years with Senate approval given to more than 1,500 treaties, while rejecting only 21 of them. Of course there has always been considerable debate between Presidents and Senates over the meaning of “advice and consent,” but what is not ambiguous is that Presidents who have secured Senate approval, even on controversial proposals, have enjoyed broader public support for their policies.

In the case of a potential Iranian nuclear deal, NIAC has constantly urged that any agreement not be turned over to the Senate for approval. Why? Quite simply, it recognizes that any deal granting Iran the continuation of its nuclear infrastructure would be dead on arrival with a large bipartisan coalition of Senators already lining up to voice concerns over a deal.

Secondly, NIAC’s passionate arguments in favor of a deal with the Iranian regime have largely fallen on deaf ears in the U.S. This has been evidenced by the dearth of coverage given by mainstream U.S. media outlets to NIAC’s statements, as well as the inability to generate any large-scale grassroots campaign aimed at key Senators as most U.S. lobbying groups have enjoyed such as abortion activists, environmentalists, business or labor unions.

Lastly, NIAC has argued the result of no deal would be far worse than taking what essentially amounts to a bad deal allowing Iran to develop and possess a nuclear weapon in as long as ten years or in as short a period as one year if it chooses to breakout of an agreement.

But what is the realistic “bad” alternative NIAC speaks of? The threat of war? It is a far more likely scenario that war might break out if Iran’s mullahs are granted the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon because Iran’s neighbors would feel even more threatened and act to disrupt Iran’s bomb making, not to mention the flow of the most dangerous weapon in to the hands of the most evil terrorist backed by the mullahs, who run the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

Also, at no point does the proposed agreement condition Iran’s mullahs to changing their behavior; crucial element all but ignored in negotiations. NIAC asks for blind faith in the intentions of Iran’s mullahs, even though the record of the past three years has gotten progressively worse and worse.

Iran’s continued support of terrorist groups, even expanding to include the Houthi in Yemen, in additional to the Hezbollah, coupled with its support of Syria and now Shiite militias in a virtual takeover of Iraq does not bode well as a track record for “moderation.”

But put on top the brutal human rights crackdown and violations within Iran domestically and the exporting of its fanatic views of Islam that now infect the region and are now reaching into the farthest reaches of the globe and you get the idea quickly why Senators are liable to vote thumbs down quickly.

The NIAC opposes a vote and opposes the exercise of democracy by the American people’s elected representatives because it already knows it has lost the vote.

By Michael Tomlinson

What Does the NIAC Stand For?

January 20, 2015 by admin

As the third and latest round of nuclear talks between the P5+1 negotiating team and Iran get underway, an important sideline cheerleader for a successful conclusion to talks giving Iran its cake and eating it too will be the National Iranian American Council.

On this blog, the NIAC has been discussed extensively for its myriad efforts on behalf of the religious regime in Tehran and its comprehensive public relations, social media and news outreach efforts. Its members, including most notably its leader Trita Parsi, actively chronicle all of the potential pitfalls to the supposed moderate efforts by Iran and its President Hassan Rouhani to achieve a peaceful solution for all parties concerned.

What strikes most observers as peculiar about NIAC is exactly what its stated mission is and how it goes about achieving its goals.

You see, to a casual observer, if you read the NIAC’s very own mission statement and self-description, you find a fairly generic and simple explanation of what it seeks to accomplish:

“The National Iranian American Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the interests of the Iranian-American community. We accomplish our mission by supplying the resources, knowledge and tools to enable greater civic participation by Iranian Americans and informed decision making by lawmakers.

Since its inception in 2002, NIAC has effectively represented Iranian Americans on Capitol Hill, giving the Iranian-American community a powerful voice. NIAC has a presence on both coasts and in the American heartland. Members of Congress are now counting on hearing from NIAC and benefiting from the perspective of Iranian Americans.”

On the surface a fairly innocuous and some might say even worthy goal, but what is interesting is the complete lack of effort by the NIAC to live up to its very own words.

Let’s take up two specific examples.

If you take a look at NIAC’s listing of key issues it advocates on, you will notice of course U.S.-Iran relations and also “Discrimination & Immigration” as well as “Community & Heritage.”

Without a doubt the state of U.S.-Iran relations is paramount to NIAC as anyone can see from perusing its blog and archives. It is extremely active on all fronts especially as it relates to nuclear negotiations and economic sanctions. You would think it would also demonstrate the same kind of concern and activism on the other two key issues areas it lists as working on behalf of Iranian-Americans.

But click through the Discrimination & Immigration link and you find a little commented on section with no entries more current than a piece done last September 2014 about a jurist and before that issues related to economic sanctions.

In the Community & Heritage link, it’s even more dismal with virtually no action or activity that is not tied to nuclear talks or economic sanctions. It seems NIAC’s greatest achievements in 2014 in this area were to hold two fundraisers in California and another one in New York.

What is even more notable is the complete lack of participation and commentary from ordinary Iranian-Americans. NIAC’s website is hard pressed to deliver anything from Iranian-Americans not associated with NIAC through employment or sponsorship. This lack of representation is the by far the most telling and damning secret about it; NIAC represents no Iranian-Americans and instead simply is a front for the Iranian regime.

This fact is mirrored in the NIAC’s constant boosterish support for Iran, yet virtually no condemnation for the scores of human rights abuses and foreign military adventures or support for terrorist groups. You would think if a group claimed to represent the interests of Iranian-Americans it might, even once, offer up an opinion poll of what Iranian-Americans think. It might help work with concerned Iranian-Americans who have relatives in Iran under arrest or imprisoned. It might call for the open access of news media, social media and the internet in Iran so relatives in the U.S. could stay in touch.

One might think the NIAC might actually do what it claimed to be doing.

Sadly, the NIAC lives only for the purpose of supporting the mullahs which is why its influence has been greatly diminished and it now lives solely within a narrow strip of political support almost exclusively within the purview of progressives and liberals; thus explaining Trita Parsi’s ardent tweets lately about Ferguson and race relations which seem to have little bearing on issues at the top of the list for most Iranian-Americans.

It is clear that as NIAC wanes in influence and more reputable and knowledgeable groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran

begin to enjoy a resurgence within Congress and among global leaders, the truth about Iran’s regime and its true intentions about nuclear weapons and expansion of its radicalized Islamist agenda will finally be revealed for the world to see.

By Michael Tomlinson