Iran Lobby

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

“Deadline Schmedline” Trita Parsi Not Worried for Regime

by

“Deadline Schmedline” Trita Parsi Not Worried for Regime

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.

Noun: dead·line

 

  • a date or time when something must be finished : the last day, hour, or minute that something will be accepted

“Deadline schmedline, I’m still not worried.”

Apparently Parsi, chief cheerleader and lobbyist for the Iran regime, has a slightly different view of deadlines than the foreign ministers of six countries negotiating with regime, but not so different from his mullah masters in Tehran since Iran has now blown past five self-imposed deadlines to reach a nuclear deal over the past two years.

The new, new deadline is today to meet a deadline set in legislation granting Congress 30 days to review any deal instead of a 60 day period; the logic being having a longer review period would allow opposition to a Iranian nuclear more time to lobby Congress.

In fact, Iran’s mullahs care little about deadlines since what they seem most interested in is taking verbal potshots at their opposite numbers, especially the U.S. as evidenced by heated exchanges from regime foreign minister Javad Zarif who chastised P5+1 negotiators for taking exception to regime’s latest demand to lift embargoes against the conventional arms trade.

Parsi was almost crowing about Zarif’s verbal explosion by tweeting out how well received it would be back in Iran by the mullahs.  All of which makes it plain Parsi could really care less about a deal as long as the regime gets to play the rest of the world as fools.

In each case as a new deadline approached, the regime has sabotaged the hope of any agreement by issuing new, aggressive demands; typically through a public rant by top mullah Ali Khamenei or more recently by issuing his very own infographic of “red lines” the regime would not cross in concessions.

And Parsi has faithfully sought to provide cover for the mullahs in his media interviews and social media tweets even though he probably knows what he is saying is either false or contradicted by the very mullahs he’s trying to make excuses for.

Take for example his tweet the other day chastising the amount of money spent by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states as part of their overall military budgets. He lists Iran’s military spending at only $10.6 billion which is patently false since the regime halted public reporting of its military expenditures since 2009 when the mullahs stole the presidential election and spurred massive protests by the Iranian people which were brutally put down.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute tracks global military spending but has no data for Iran past 2009 and the data it did have before then did not include regime spending for paramilitary forces such as the Revolutionary Guards Corps and Quds Force, nor did it take into account aid given to terror groups such as Hezbollah or proxies such as Shiite militias in Iraq or Houthi rebels in Yemen.

But Parsi is by no means the only apologist for the regime. His colleague Reza Marashi has been just as busy in trying to explain why the mullahs keep heaping on demand after demand even after a so-called interim agreement was reached and only “technical” details had to be worked out.

His contention in the Los Angeles Times was that the mullahs worry the “White House will use administrative authority to temporarily lift U.S. sanctions on Iran but that Congress won’t follow through to permanently remove sanctions that were enacted into law.”

It is an odd position to take since the lifting of sanctions was agreed upon in the interim agreement only after verifying the regime had lived up to the conditions of a deal, including verification and reductions in enriched uranium stockpiles; both conditions repudiated by the regime since last April’s agreement.

But the truth doesn’t seem to faze Parsi and his cohorts and neither it seem do deadlines.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Iran Regime’s Red Lines in Nuclear Talks

by

Khamenei's Redliens on Nuclear Talks-New deception tecnics

Khamenei’s Redliens on Nuclear Talks-New deception tecnics

With June 30 having arrived and no nuclear agreement being reached between the Iran regime and the P5+1 group of nations, one could call everything “business as usual” with yet another deadline preceded by frantic talks and then slipping away without a ripple of consequence.

Of course the “new” immediate deadline will be July 9, in which the Obama administration needs to deliver an agreement to Congress to trigger a 30 day review period, otherwise if they miss it, Congress will have 60 days to review as part of a compromise deal struck between the administration and Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

But this new deadline is just as likely to slide by as the one today and the reason for it was put on display today in bright, bold red lines by the regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei, who wasted no time taking to Twitter and his official website to post his own version of “Major Red Lines in Nuclear Negotiations” for the regime.

Khamenei’s red lines, unlike those laid down by President Obama after Assad in Syria gassed his own people, are firmly set and unlikely to change since Khamenei is empowered by the mullahs’ constitution to hold the final approval of any foreign agreements, which makes his red lines worth examining.

Khamenei’s red lines essentially repudiates every pointed allegedly agreed upon condition in earlier interim, framework agreements and reasserts the regime’s opposition to virtually all the conditions the P5+1 have sought over the past three years; even after making significant and grave concessions to the regime.

They include:

  • No long-term restrictions on the regime’s nuclear program as opposed to the decade-long restriction sought by negotiators;
  • Continuation of the regime’s nuclear research and development program during the restriction period in spite of prior agreements to halt such research;
  • Immediate lifting of all economic, financial and banking sanctions with signing of an agreement, including all sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, European Union and U.S. Congress and administration without requirements the regime was in compliance;
  • Lifting of sanctions must be conditioned on the start of the regime’s implementation of the agreement, not after international inspections have verified its compliance;
  • Verification by the UN’s inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency will not be accepted by the regime, nor will inspectors be granted unconditional access to any regime facility;
  • No inspection of military facilities will be allowed, nor will interviews of any regime scientist or technical personnel; and
  • The regime opposes any longer term period of review, inspection or compliance beyond the fixed term, which means no 15 or 25 year window to maintain compliance.

The fact that Khamenei repudiated almost every condition regime foreign minister Javad Zarif and its president, Hassan Rouhani touted as landmark agreements should come as no surprise really. Khamenei’s public tweets and statements following the interim agreement announced jointly by the regime and the P5+1 to much fanfare on April, 2015 clearly showed his displeasure and contention that the regime had not submitted to any of these conditions.

Not even regime cheerleader Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council could alter the inevitable outcome with his unsurprising appearance in Vienna, Austria, the site of these talks where he attempted to convince any reporter with a notebook, camera or microphone that the regime was indeed serious about these talks and on the verge of closing a deal.

But given the clear and unmistakable conditions laid out by Khamenei, the only real question is how willing is the Obama administration to concede even more and essentially give the regime a blank check or at least a $140 billion check, the amount in frozen assets the regime’s mullahs are lusting after to replenish their coffers drained by three proxy years in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

William Kristol writing in The Weekly Standard warns the administration may have very well caved in on the all-important issue of inspection access by conceding that since the U.S. would not allow universal access to its own military sites, it could afford Iran the same consideration.

All of which sets the stage for the final act before July 9 of whether or not the P5+1 completely cave and adhere to all of Khamenei’s conditions or recognize in the final act that Iran’s mullahs really have no desire for an agreement and instead have been fooling the world for the past three years.

By Michael Tomlinson

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

by

Iran Lobby on the Nuclear Discussions

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.”

Stopping Concessions to Iran Regime Key to Regional Peace

by

 

 

Stopping Concessions to Iran Regime Key to Regional Peace

Stopping Concessions to Iran Regime Key to Regional Peace

With only a week left before the June 30 deadline for an agreement between the P5+1 group of nations and the Iran regime, the Iran lobby is working overtime spitting out editorials, policy papers and other propaganda stressing the same messages it has been hammering on for three years.

This was no more evident than in a piece published in Foreign Policy by Trita Parsi, head of the regime’s chief cheerleader the National Iranian American Council, who trotted out the old standard that the only choices at the bargaining table was between war and peace; claiming that this dispute was “rarely resolved through diplomacy without the various sides going to war first.”

Of course that is a false choice and a weak scare tactic because the choices are much more varied and numerous than Parsi would have us believe. In fact, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the largest Iranian dissident groups in the world, held a press conference today where they released a report outlining the laundry list of same deceptions and falsehoods Parsi has been flogging.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the NCRI-US deputy director, outlined some of these other choices for negotiators and chief among them was the potential for regime change itself within the Iran regime which has been wracked by large scale demonstrations across the country by disgruntled teachers and workers who are fed up with large-scale corruption and the diversion of the nation’s wealth away from the economy and to fund terror groups and proxy wars in places such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

It certainly did not help that the mullahs decided to fortify a faltering Assad government in Syria with an additional 15,000 troops, comprised heavily of paid mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan.

And this is what Parsi attempts to misled with his editorial. While he claims the choices are stark between war and peace, he neglects to mention that Iran mullahs are already at war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Sunnis tribes in Iraq and the Syrian people who are standing up against he dictatorship ruling the country. The regime’s Revolutionary Guards and Quds Force are already fighting on battlefields throughout the Middle East.

And this even isn’t a recent development. Iranian regime’s military has long supplied local militias in Iraq in their fight against U.S. and coalition forces, including training in constructing improvised explosive devices, LEDs, which have claimed thousands of American lives.

“What does this mean? It means that Iran doesn’t seem particularly interested in entering into a dialogue with the Obama Administration at the moment,” wrote Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic in 2011.

All of which puts the lie to Parsi’s chief argument since Iran’s mullahs have already been waging war against U.S. interests and personnel for the past five years. This brings us to another of Parsi’s ham-handed arguments, namely that a deal represents a watershed moment in the relationship between Iran and the U.S. and would make Iran more amenable to working with the U.S.

Another silly proposition since Iran’s mullahs have shown a shocking willingness to turn American hostages into bargaining pawns and demanded – and received – the exclusion of human rights and ballistic missile technology from any part of the negotiations.

The NCRI report clearly showed this by delving deeply into how Tehran has approached nuclear talks by consistently keeping military sites out of inspections, foot dragging requests for disclosure by the International Atomic Energy Agency, retaining its nuclear infrastructure in its entirety including its centrifuges, uranium stockpiles and heavy water reactors, and keeping talks alive after three years with false promises and interim agreements, leaving it free to pursue its military actions abroad.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

NIAC Leads Charge for Great Iran Giveaway

by

GiveawayReza Marashi, another one of the National Iranian American Council’s regime cheerleaders, offered an editorial on the final hurdles facing nuclear negotiators in Switzerland. It is an impressive piece of fiction, worthy of a Hugo Award for fantasy writing.

His ignoring the televised rants by top mullah Ali Khamenei in denouncing any freeze on Iran’s nuclear program and opposition to any inspections of military or secret sites and demand for an immediate lifting of economic sanctions by the entire world even before ink is dry on an agreement is proof that Marashi is attempting that unique political high wire act; covering for a boss who suffers foot-in-mouth disease.

But I sympathize with Marashi. It can’t be easy to spin a line when your top guy goes on national television to basically undermine everything you’re saying. Marashi might find better luck defending the Confederate battle flag these days.

In another flight of fancy, Marashi claims that “Iran gave more than it received in the interim nuclear deal, and is looking to collect on that investment.” We certainly agree on the second part of that statement, Iran’s mullahs are certainly looking to collect – about $140 billion in frozen assets in what would be a gigantic payday, but the first part of the statement is disingenuous.

The Wall Street Journal, amongst scores of other news media, has documented the avalanche of concessions granted to the Iran regime by P5+1 negotiators without any comparable concessions from the mullahs. Those concessions began with the most important and earliest concession which was to move away from dismantling Iran’s nuclear program to complex Rube Goldberg structure of stretching out the “breakout” time for creating a nuclear weapon.

Marashi, his colleague at the NIAC Trita Parsi and other regime sympathizers, have created a new vocabulary of deceit with newly invented terms such as “snapback sanctions” and “breakout times” to replace conditions such as “dismantling centrifuges” and “eliminating fuel stockpiles.” It amounts to a shell game any tourist on the sidewalks of New York city would recognize with Iran’s mullahs hiding their nuclear program under a walnut and moving it rapidly around.

But what Iran’s mullahs truly want – and badly – is the cash. The $140 billion at the end of their nuclear rainbow is desperately needed – not by the ordinary Iranian citizen strangled by a corrupted economy – but a religious theocracy bled dry from three costly proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and crashing oil prices. The mullahs need that money to prop their floundering regime afloat and keep their extremists allies well-equipped with guns, rockets and cash to pay mercenaries recruited from Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and Nigeria.

To put it into perspective, according to the International Monetary Fund, Iran’s total foreign currency reserves amounts to only $110 billion, ranking it 21st in the world. The U.S. only has currency reserves of $121.5 billion, ranking it 19th. A $140 billion cash infusion into Iran would vault it to 11th place, ahead of Mexico, Germany, the U.K., France and Italy and just behind powerhouses Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and China.

That, more than anything else, is what the mullahs are craving like heroin to an addict. They need that cash to pay for their military adventures, to support terror groups and to maintain the massive expenditures required to continue building its nuclear infrastructure including new equipment it intends to buy from Russia and North Korea.

And if that wasn’t enough, Marashi also proposes that UN sanctions be rewritten to exclude tying sanctions to non-nuclear issues “such as arms procurement and export, human rights, and terrorism.” In effect, giving Iran a free pass to acquire arms, export them to its proxies, continue hanging people at a breakneck pace and lavish terror groups with more support.

Clearly Marashi has given up all pretense of finding common ground with negotiating countries and instead is all-in with the mullahs in trying to get everything they can before the June 30th deadline. The “throw everything in the basket” approach is reminiscent of looters sweeping through a CVS store grabbing everything they can before burning it down.

The end result will leave a deeply destabilized world with a nuclear-capable and flush with cash Iran still controlled by a small cadre of extremist mullahs.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran’s Top Mullah Doubling Down on Hardline

by

Khamenei Military SpeechPity Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council and chief cheerleader for the Iran regime. He toils tirelessly to spin arguments in favor of closing a nuclear deal with Iran by emphasizing a newfangled moderation within Iran and the need to empower Iran’s “moderates” against the uncompromising “hardliners.”

Unfortunately for him, the key player in Iran, Ali Khamenei, who under the Islamic state’s constitution basically gets the final word on almost every aspect of Iranian life, undercut Parsi yet again with another of his now-famous rants denouncing all things Parsi previously hailed as significant milestones during these three torturous years of talks.

One might feel compassion for Parsi if it wasn’t for the fact that obfuscation has become a high art form for him in defending a regime that by all objective standards is corrupt and bloodthirsty.

In a speech broadcast live on Iranian state television and widely reported in global media, Khamenei doubled down on previous demands and called for sanctions against Iran to be lifted before the regime dismantled one bolt of its nuclear infrastructure and before any verification by international inspectors takes place. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s nuclear enrichment for a decade – as previously announced in the interim framework agreement – and repeated his refusal to allow inspections of any military sites.

“All financial and economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. Congress or the U.S. government should be lifted immediately when we sign a nuclear agreement,” Khamenei said.

Khamenei’s statements, when taken into context of what it means to not suspend nuclear development and not allow international inspections, show clearly the regime’s intent of not only maintaining the capability for developing a nuclear weapon, but dramatically shorten the window from years to mere months.

In an editorial in the New York Times by Prof. Alan Kuperman of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas, the good professor calculated that Iran’s breakout window actually shrinks from a proposed year to only three months.

Guy Benson in a Townhall.com piece reminds us of the perplexing revelation that during nuclear talks, Iran had actually already increased its stockpile of enriched uranium by 20 percent instead of shrinking it as previously agreed to.

Guy Taylor of the Washington Times began a series of reports examining the regime’s awful history of evasion and duplicity in hiding its nuclear program and denying access to inspections and raised red flags over the Obama administration’s assertions that it already knew for certain Iran’s prior history on nuclear development and didn’t need to know more.

“If you look forward without looking back, then you miss decades of Iranian nuclear mendacity and a well-established record of Iranian(regime’s) cheating and challenging the IAEA,” said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, in the Washington Times report. “I think Secretary Kerry should be more cautious in assuming that the U.S. intelligence community has ‘absolute knowledge’ of Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Iranians stonewalled the IAEA for years. They’ve been denying inspectors’ access, and they’ve been building illicit nuclear facilities that we’ve been unable to detect,” he said. “We’ve gone through six separate U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006, and time and time again, in every report, the IAEA has said it was unable to certify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful — that there are no undeclared sites or activities and there is no illicit diversion of nuclear material.”

Taylor further writes:

“Indeed, a timeline on the official website of the IAEA outlines a history of back-and-forth between the U.N. nuclear inspectors and Iranian authorities dating back to 2002.

“Although there is sporadic evidence of cooperation from Tehran over the years, the period was highlighted by repeated incidents of frustration by IAEA inspectors, who felt they were either outright blocked or intentionally misled during investigative visits to Iran.

“Such frustration reached a critical moment in 2006, when the U.N. Security Council responding by passing a resolution demanding that “Iran suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or face possible economic [and] diplomatic sanctions.”

It is those sanctions and ones imposed by the U.S. that Khamenei has doubled down on to see removed in order to gain access to an estimated $140 billion windfall in frozen regime assets. Given the regime’s past use of funds in proxy wars and terror activities, we can only assume what a payday like that would mean to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq.

By Michael Tomlinson

Apologizing for Iran Regime is a Full-Time Job

by

ApologyIn our politically-correct, social-media driven society, many smart people have taken to complaining over the use of the public apology for almost every conceivable slight; perceived or otherwise.

In the arena of politics and diplomacy though, the art of apologizing sometime reaches historic proportions with a refinement worthy of a well-aged wine. Often times a political or diplomatic apology takes the form of the “non-apology apology” which is when a politician will often not apologize for a given action or policy, but apologize instead for the perceived distress such action causes.

It usually includes phrases such as “I’m sorry you feel that way” and “to anyone who may be offended” and is a calculated effort to demonstrate compassion and empathy when in fact there is none. For those who have long defended the Iran regime, it is a veritable way of life.

Apologists such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, Jim Lobe of Lobelog, Bijan Khajehpour of Atieh International and Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, have been loud and vocal supporters of the Iran regime and have taken great pains to excuse its actions; even its most barbarous and callous acts.

Parsi for example has historically apologized for Iran’s human rights violations such as the holding of American hostages on trumped up charges with no open trials as being evidence of a political schism amongst moderate and hardline factions within the regime’s ranks.

Fitzpatrick has also made excuses for Iran’s foreign policy adventures and proxy wars in places such as Syria and Yemen as potentially stabilizing actions, rather than the chaotic acts they actually are. Not to mention that mullahs in Iran are indeed the source of the chaos in most cases.

In each case, the Iran lobby’s apologists have gone out of their way to come up with every possible answer explaining the regime’s actions except the obvious, most logical and correct one which is Iran’s mullahs are firmly set on pursuing a course of action that solidifies their grip on power and expands their extremist ideology.

Sohrab Ahmari, an editorial page writer for the Wall Street Journal, has exhaustively written in Commentary Magazine of the deep and incontrovertible connections between the regime and the wide range of apologists covering for Iran’s mullahs, including Parsi.

“Parsi holds views that have surely warmed the ayatollahs’ hearts. An Iranian-born Swedish citizen, Parsi had made a name with his 2008 book Treacherous Alliance. The book’s basic claim was that the conflict between Khomeinist Iran and the U.S. and Israel was primarily a matter of Tehran’s seeking strategic respect in the region and not, as Jerusalem insisted, on anti-Semitic ideology,” Ahmari writes.

“His argument elided the many ways in which the regime had actually attempted to back its ideological proclamations with action. It also invited readers in effect to excuse the regime’s ugly rhetoric as the lashing out of a rising power,” he added.

The failure of constant apologizing for the regime is that it eventually does nothing to cover up the actions the regime takes and rings hollow to anyone with a brain.

As Tyron Edwards, an American theologian best known for a book of quotations called “A Dictionary of Thoughts,” wrote in the 19th century: “Right actions for the future are the best apologies for wrong ones in the past.”

What he wrote over 170 years ago still applies today. Actions and not words are the best guide to future behavior and the Iran regime has exhibited plenty of actions which are the only real ruler nuclear negotiators in Switzerland should go by.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

Iran Regime Has No Intention of Changing

by

epa03823138 A general view of the parliament during the parliament session on 13 August 2013 in Tehran, Iran. Iranian president Hassan Rowhani proposed his cabinet to the parliament on 12 August 2013. All designated ministers need the majority votes of the 290 deputies before taking office. Rowhani said that his government will take distance from any form of extremism and rather adopt a moderate approach for ending the country?s international isolation. EPA/ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH

A general view of the parliament during the parliament session on 13 August 2013 in Tehran, Iran. Iranian president Hassan Rowhani proposed his cabinet to the parliament on 12 August 2013. All designated ministers need the majority votes of the 290 deputies before taking office. Rowhani said that his government will take distance from any form of extremism and rather adopt a moderate approach for ending the country?s international isolation. EPA

Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council and chief apologist for the Iran regime, has long maintained that the bluster of Iranian lawmakers and other officials in denouncing a proposed nuclear deal was evidence of a schism within Iran between moderates and hardliners and that only agreement on a deal could empower moderate elements to win out.

 

The NIAC has even gone so far as to claim that heinous and brutal human rights violations are the product of these ideological struggle amongst Iran’s ruling mullahs.

It has been a straw man for the Iran lobby and an effort to divert attention from the truth which is in fact while there are divisions within Iran’s ruling class on how to share power, but both divisions stands firmly united behind a single goal; the preservation and expansion of their power and corrupted extremist Islamic ideology.

With little more than a week remaining before a self-imposed June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations, Iran’s mullahs have expressed little to no interest in completing a deal.

This Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to oppose inspections of government military sites as part of any agreement, in direct opposition to what negotiators from the U.S. and France have called a “must-have” condition for any agreement. The legislative move follows similar statements made by the regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei, who also declared Iranian regime’s military sites off-limits to inspectors.

The mullah’s legislation states in part: “The International Atomic Energy Agency, within the framework of the safeguard agreement, is allowed to carry out conventional inspections of nuclear sites.”

However, it concludes that “access to military, security and sensitive non-nuclear sites, as well as documents and scientists, is forbidden.”

All of this follows a series of concessions already granted by the P5+1 including the exclusion of ballistic missile technology, the retaining of thousands of enriching centrifuges and moves to accommodate Hezbollah and Pakistani nuclear component exporters. Not to mention the failure of the Iran regime to curb its support for three proxy wars, the release of four American hostages and any loosening of brutal human rights repression. This is while over 1800 people have been executed in Iran during Rouhani’s tenure.

As the Washington Examiner pointed out this weekend, even though the Obama administration is intently focused on securing a nuclear deal with the Iran regime, it has all but ignored the terrorism that Iran sponsors and facilitates throughout the region as outlined in the State Department’s annual report on terrorism released on Friday.

As Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) aptly pointed out: “Now that the administration admits nuclear talks haven’t diminished Iran’s support for terrorism, to what extent has Iran used the interim nuclear deal’s $12 billion in sanctions relief payments to fund terrorists or other terror-supporting regimes?”

“As we move closer to the June 30th deadline for a final nuclear deal that could return as much as $140 billion in frozen funds to Iran, the White House remains silent on this critical question.”

And this strikes to the heart of the argument made by Parsi and other regime allies. If there is a battle of moderate and hardline influences within Iran, where is the proof of moderation on the battlefield so to speak? Nowhere has the regime exercised any restraint or moderation as it pursues its extremist policies.

Has Iran regime cut off aid to Hezbollah and Assad in Syria? No, it’s committed another 15,000 troops, this time, including drawing mercenary recruits from Afghanistan. Have mullahs released American prisoners as a show of good faith? No, it is moving ahead with a closed trial of Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter on espionage charges for reporting. Has Iranian regime sought to reassure the world it will comply with nuclear inspection? No, it still refuses to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency in 12 areas of concern over the military dimensions of its nuclear program.

It does not take a leap of logic to see that the Iran regime is firmly committed to its course of nuclear weapons development and is merely taking the world along for a joy ride as its seeks its real prize; the release of $140 billion in frozen cash and opening the floodgates of billions more in foreign investment.

Parsi and his cohorts can’t even hide this truth with their obfuscations.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Calls “Czar” Key to Sanctions Relief

by

Czar Nicholas (1)Czar Nicholas II of Russia was the last monarch to bear that title until his execution during the Russian Revolution in 1918, but the title of “czar” would still stay in fashion in American politics as an informal description of high-ranking officials named to oversee specific programs or issue areas.

The first use of “czar” by an American president was Franklin Roosevelt who named 11 “czars” during his administration to oversee areas such as transportation, censorship, petroleum, war production and even rubber; often as part of the recovery from the Great Depression and in response to the demands of World War II.

Since then presidents have used czars sparingly with latter administrations naming one or two periodically. It wasn’t until Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama that the practice mushroomed with the naming of 33 and 38 czars respectively. In President Obama’s case, he has appointed czars for Ebola response, faith-based partnerships, AIDS, trade, information technology and even one for the invasive Asian carp.

But now the Obama administration is considering the appointment of a new czar to oversee final negotiations and implementation of a nuclear agreement between the P5+1 group of nations and the Iran regime. The idea behind this new czar would be to have a single point person serving as lead coordinator for implementation and enforcement.

While State Department sources have mulled the idea of a czar in response to the failure of the U.S. to enforce the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, which eventually was ignored by the rogue state as it violated its terms to build a nuclear arsenal, the Iran lobby views the position as being a key instrument by which to ensure the speedy lifting of economic sanctions.

“It would also send a message to the American bureaucracy to be efficient, not just in making sure that Iran holds up its end of the deal, but also in ensuring that the U.S. fulfills its promises, especially when it comes to easing sanctions,” said Trita Parsi, head of the regime’s chief cheerleading lobby the National Iranian American Council.

The viewpoint of Parsi and other regime supporters is that the consolidation of U.S. responsibility for Iran nuclear issues within a single point person provides an incredibly advantageous opportunity to manipulate a single high-ranking official who could cut through the clutter and get sanctions lifted quickly on the pretext of complying with the terms of an agreement.

Having an Iran czar solves several problems for regime supporters at once:

  • It takes the Obama administration off the hook by de-escalating talks from Secretary Kerry to another official who may face less media scrutiny to complete a deal;
  • It provides direct access for the Iran lobby to a single person responsible for all things related to Iran. Instead of having to slug it out with State Department bureaucrats or intelligence officials at the Defense Department or even members of Congress, the regime’s lobby could have just one “go-to” person; and
  • Given the Iran lobby’s ability to place former employees in high-ranking administration positions, the appointment of a non-Senate approved czar allows them to slide one of their own into the position.

On the other hand, floating the idea of an Iran czar also strikes many observers as an act of desperation in the effort to close a floundering deal with less than two weeks left before a self-imposed June 30 deadline. Under the terms of compromise legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, the U.S. is hoping to have an agreement in place by July 9 in order to trigger the 30 day congressional review period, rather than the 60 day review period should they miss that deadline.

Reports in the Associated Press from diplomats from all six nations participating indicate  “Iran and six powers are still apart on all main elements of a nuclear deal with less than two weeks to go to their June 30 target date and will likely have to extend their negotiations. Their comments enforce concerns that obstacles to a pact remain beyond the public debate on how far Iran must open its nuclear program to outside purview under any deal.”

The appointment of a czar to complete a deal would follow similar pronouncements made of “agreements in principle” with only details to be worked out. Having a designated czar allows the Obama administration to walk away from the bargaining table, away from global press scrutiny, and allow for rapid concessions to be made to Iran’s mullahs in relative privacy.

The scenario becomes increasingly likely as disclosures of new concessions granted to the regime seem to leak out daily from Switzerland. Indeed, the agreement is becoming riddled with as many holes as Swiss cheese.

By Michael Tomlinson

What Price Appeasement of Iran Regime?

by

ChamberlainAny kind of negotiation is often an exercise in incremental concession. There is a give and take bound by the needs and desires of the participants at the table. While outside forces influence what happens, the real outcome of any negotiation results strictly from what the parties at the table are willing to give up in order to get what they desire more.

In the case of the ongoing negotiations between the P5+1 group of nations and the Iran regime, the results of nearly three years of talk have revealed these to be less about what the give and take of hard bargaining is, but rather what the U.S. is seemingly willing to give up in order to claim any kind of PR victory in sealing a deal.

As part of that process, the U.S. has steadily given ground on a remarkable range of concessions to mullahs in Iran without securing anything nearly comparable in return. If this was a negotiation between a labor union and company; with the union being Iran and the company being the U.S., the union would have already had the name changed on the building, the managers fired, pay hikes conceded with three days off each week.

So thoroughly have Iran’s mullahs fleeced the world that is it remarkable no one has bothered to catalogue the litany of concessions. Some news media have tried, but the scope of what has been given up exceeds the space available in most daily newspapers.

One columnist taking exception to the Iran fire sale is Lawrence J. Haas of U.S. News and World Report who writes in his World Report blog:

“Facing a June 30 deadline to complete an agreement, U.S. negotiators reportedly are dropping the central demand that, as part of an agreement, Iran must come clean about the ‘possible military dimensions,’ or PMDs, of its nuclear program – that is, the past weapons-related activities,” Haas said.

“Washington’s reversal is particularly striking in light of its insistence – when reports surfaced three months ago that it was considering backing down on possible military dimensions – that it would do no such thing. When, for instance, The Wall Street Journal reported in March that U.S. negotiators were preparing to cave on the issue, Secretary of State John Kerry stated unequivocally that the Iranians would have to come clean about possible military dimensions before the United States would strike a final agreement,” Haas added.

This follows a New York Times report that Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the administration’s willingness to ease economic sanctions without fully resolving evidence suggesting Iranian regime’s scientists have been involved in secret nuclear weapons development.

The ledger of concessions have filled steadily with major heavyweight concessions dealt with years ago including exempting ballistic missile development, improvements in domestic human rights conditions, suspension of death penalty executions and ceasing support for terror groups and militia involved in proxy wars; all given away without any reciprocal concession from Iran’s mullahs.

The most stunning concession came over the weekend in which the Obama administration proposed the U.S. closing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s as yet unresolved case against Iran’s undeclared military sites and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

Instead, the U.S. proposed allowing the IAEA conduct token inspections of a handful of sites already publicly known and not allowing inspections of undeclared sites. The stunning news was an about face of a “red-line in the sand” set by the administration for enforcing an agreement with “anytime, anywhere” inspection provisions.

This latest concession effectively permits Iran to develop and assemble nuclear weapons in relative peace and quiet and is an admission by the Obama administration it is prepared to give the mullahs their nuclear weapon.

The Wall Street Journal took a look at more subtle concessions the U.S. has provided during the course of negotiations including pulling U.S. funding support for a Lebanese civil society group aggressively opposed by Hezbollah, the terror group which has enjoyed long-term support from mullahs in Iran.

The Journal also cited the case of Buhary Seyed Abu Tahir, a Dubai-based Sri Lankan businessman who in 2004 was cited personally by President George W. Bush as the “chief financial officer and money launderer” for the nuclear-proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. According to a 2004 investigation by Malaysian authorities, in 1994 or 1995 Mr. Khan asked Mr. Tahir to ship uranium centrifuges to Iran.

“The Bush Administration put Mr. Tahir on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of sanctioned persons. But the Treasury Department removed his name from that list on April 3, exactly one day after the framework agreement was announced,” the Journal said.

The concessions keep coming at a steadily increasing pace to June 30 and indicate a worrisome trend the Obama administration is basically negotiating against itself at this point in making offer after offer to the Iranians without receiving anything in return in a glaring example of desperation.

The policy of appeasement has never succeeded in history and there is no reason to think doing so to mullahs in Iran will yield any different outcome.

By Michael Tomlinson