Iran Lobby

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

Iran Lobby Tries Clearing Economic Pathway for Regime

by

Iran Lobby Tries Clearing Economic Pathway for Regime

Iran Lobby Tries Clearing Economic Pathway for Regime

The Iran lobby, led by the National Iranian American Council, has been busy working to clear the economic runway for the Iran regime now that it has its nuclear deal because now that it has the opportunity to operate more freely in the world, the mullahs have opted to significantly increase the regime’s military operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq; all of which requires cash and mountains of it.

As part of that NIAC propaganda push, Tyler Cullis and Amir Handjani, posted an editorial in The Hill arguing that the U.S. should open greater economic ties with the Islamic regime; the reason being that European and Asian nations are already quickly seeking to exploit these new markets.

Cullis and Handjani are correct that there are some companies and nations seeking to rush into this economic void. We know that China has a deep interest in securing contracts for cheap Iranian oil, while Russia has already begun selling weapons to the regime despite the fact that embargos on advanced ballistic missiles and weapons remains in effect.

They note however that the Obama administration has put the brakes on the rush to re-open economic ties with the regime. Part of delay comes from the huge groundswell of negative reaction from American voters to the nuclear deal which has forced many representatives who supported the deal to backtracked and offer up new pieces of legislation to address the perception that the Iran regime received a sweetheart deal and the U.S. got nothing in return; most notably Sen. Ben Cardin’s (D-MD) move to introduce to track compliance by the regime.

Most anti-regime critics called the effort too little, too late and still does not address the central and most critical issue surrounding the Iran regime: the delinking of human rights and sponsorship of terror from the deal and thus making no effort to reform or modify the regime’s bloodthirsty policies.

There has also been discussions and disagreements over the conflict between the nuclear deal and the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA) which was signed into law in August 2012 by President Obama which closes the foreign subsidiary loophole that the an annex in the nuclear deal makes open.

According to Fox News, “ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

“Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.”

All of which drives a stake through the arguments made by Cullis and Handjani who by using the flawed tactic of supporting “moderates” against “hardliner” mullahs, argue that continued economic isolation of Iran only strengthens the “hardliners” and leaves American companies out in the cold versus their European and Asian competitors.

First of all, it is refreshing Cullis and Handjani are so interested in the economic well-being of American firms, but the reality is they recognize failure to fully open Iran to international trade and commerce will not bring in the cash and investment necessary for the regime to generate the revenue necessary to fund its expansionist policies.

The regime has spent upwards of $15 billion in direct financial aid and military support just to prop up the Assad regime in Syria alone. This doesn’t include the billions being spent to arm Houthis in Yemen and outfit Shiite militias in Iraq, not to mention the regime’s old terrorist partners in Hezbollah. With slumping oil prices, the mullahs desperately need that foreign investment to help keep them in power as ordinary Iranians have staged protests against the “war economy” top mullah Ali Khamenei has mandated for the past decade.

Oddly, Cullis and Handjani use the analogy of President Nixon opening up relations with China in the early ‘70s as an example of opening up to a closed society the U.S. was in conflict with, but what they don’t mention is the fact that coming out of the Vietnam War, China recognized the need to end its sponsorship of armed conflict and instead turn to embracing capitalism.

The fact that a deeply Communist nation that inflicted the Cultural Revolution on its people in brutal repression, recognized it needed to do a complete policy turnaround and embrace the very thing it denounced as part of its founding represents why the Nixon overtures were even possible in the first place; China’s leaders made that opening available by being receptive to change.

Iran’s mullahs have exhibited no such inclination. In fact since the nuclear deal was agreed to, Iran has partnered with Russia to step up an air and ground campaign in Syria, was caught smuggling weapons into Yemen and has turned Iraq into a virtual client state.

So while the Iran lobby may be hard at work trying to rewrite history, the Iran regime is busy trying to shape the future to its own perverted vision.

By Laura Carnahan

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

When is a Deadline Not a Deadline?

by

Buyer RemorseA curious thing happened to the powerful lobbying machine working tirelessly around the clock to halt the re-imposition of economic sanctions by a bi-partisan coalition of Senate Democrats and Republicans last week who felt after two earlier rounds of talks failed the current third round was going nowhere fast as well.

Iranian regime’s sympathizers rejoiced at the agreement by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to postpone action until March 24th and give the Obama administration two additional months to demonstrate there had been meaningful progress towards a verifiable deal agreeable to Congress. Led by the National Iranian American Council, they boasted of the “win” and what it portended for the future of a nuclear agreement.

But in the span of two weeks, these same Iranian loyalists are now suddenly crying foul over the two month delay, now contending all it did was move the original deadline up for a deal from the June 30th deadline agreed to by the P5+1 group negotiating with Iran to March 24th. In essence, the “win” shaved three months instead of gaining two months.

There is nothing quite like patting yourself on the back as a winner only to realize you were an idiot.

Trita Parsi, the NIAC’s head cheerleader, said in comments to Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen, herself a dedicated Iranian regime fan, that “Treating the March ‘interim deadline as the final deadline is highly problematic.’”

Parsi’s comments are almost comic after the NIAC statement two weeks ago in the wake of the Senate’s action which said in part:

“This is a significant victory for those of us who have worked to support a diplomatic agreement, not a war, with Iran. We commend everyone who has worked to stop the diplomacy-killing sanctions bill.”

It seems the NIAC is having a case of buyer’s remorse.

While it seems the vaunted Iranian lobbying machine may have shot itself in the foot, the truth of the matter is that they have not really lost time. In fact, one could argue Iran has already gained two years since the first round of talks collapsed in failure and were kept on a respirator through another failed round of talks last November.

In fact, American public opinion had swung solidly in favor of action against the unprecedented growth in radical Islamic terror around the world as epitomized by the ISIS video depicting the horrific death of Jordan’s pilot by fire, which was simply the straw breaking the camel’s back, forcing Senators to act.

This is the essential point Iran’s cadre of supporters are frankly scared witless about; the sanctions ship has already sailed in large part because mullahs in Iran have already had three years to make good on any substantial deal.

But in that time, Iran has poured vast resources of arms, fighters and cash into terrorist activities. It has helped Hezbollah as it fought in Syria, Iraq as it took over that country’s military, orchestrated the total collapse of Yemen and allowed ISIS to spring forth just on the foreign policy front.

At home, Iran has publicly executed over a 1,200 men and women, cracked down on Internet access, blocked social media, arrested and imprisoned political dissidents, journalists, ethnic and religious minorities and even American citizens.

The fact that a delay to March 24th was granted is quite probably the last shred of hope the Iranian lobby is likely to receive. The fact they are now crying over it is more a testament to their own inadequacies than anything else.

To paraphrase from singer Bryan Adam’s 1981 landmark second album, I would say to the Iranian lobby: “You wanted it, you got it. Now live with it.”

By Michael Tomlinson

It’s About the Humanity Stupid

by

HumanityDuring President Bill Clinton’s campaign, his manager James Carville coined the now famous phrase “It’s the economy stupid” when deciding on the campaign’s key themes. It proved to be simple, powerful and ultimately successful.

Today we are faced with a variation of that theme with the fast-moving developments occurring on two fronts: the rapid growth of ISIS and the ongoing talks with Iran on nuclear weapons.

In both cases, the nature of the public debate and discussion about each has moved to almost polar opposites for these two issues. On the one hand, ISIS is generating a visceral, deep emotional horror as the world watches video after video revealing beheadings and now burnings. ISIS is attempting and succeeding in forcing an almost gag-like reflex at the barbarity and cruelty it is displaying. ISIS has few if any supporters outside of the few radicalized state sponsors of terror and rival terror groups.

In contrast, the ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program have begun to take on a more technical, dry and almost boring aura. Discussions over centrifuges, enrichment capability, stockpiles of fuel and their purity are topics sometimes more avidly discussed in college physics courses than on late night talk shows. Iran also employs a vast and well-funded lobbying and PR machine that encompasses public interest groups, public relations firms, high-priced lobbyists, columnists and journalists and the occasional ex-public official.

But in weighing the importance of the two issues, there is no greater threat to the stability and peace on a global stage than mullah’s regime in Iran and its quest for a nuclear weapon; which brings me back to Carville’s turn of phrase.

The debate and discussion about Iran’s nuclear weapons program needs a literary jump start and the lexicon of humanity needs to be re-injected back into the issue. Iran has worked mightily to keep any link to its dismal human rights record or sponsorship of terrorist groups from being attached to ongoing nuclear talks. Iran’s mullahs have sought and succeeded to some degree in keeping the discussion as dry as the desert sands.

But these talks do need the context of the impacts Iran is having on the rest of the world in order for the P5+1 group of nations to gain a greater understanding of exactly who sits across the table from them. The difficulty is that after two previous failed rounds of talks and almost three years of unrelenting compromise from the Iranian side, any sane and normal person might be feeling a bit exhausted by this exercise.

The political pressure the Obama administration is under to deliver a foreign policy win of any kind has pushed the talks forward into giving Iran access to over $11 billion in frozen assets for few if any meaningful concessions. The West, in large part, has lost the language battle by no longer including terms such as “human rights,” “political dissidents,” “public executions” or “terror sponsorship” as part of the discussions.

Secretary of State John Kerry briefly introduced a fig leaf when he brought up the plight of imprisoned Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, but that brought little result and still leaves unmentioned the plight of literally thousands that are imprisoned by Iran, including other American citizens.

What has also been notable is the lack of vocabulary amongst Iran’s supporters over the increasing levels of barbarity and violence coming from ISIS. Aside from a statement from the Iranian government, there has been no similar reaction from Iran loyalists such as the National Iranian American Council or their affiliates.

The very absence of any humane commentary illuminates what is missing from any dialogue concerning Iran. It is also the key issue that leaves many Senators on both sides of the political aisle uneasy about any deal negotiated with Iran. Can the U.S. trust a regime whose concepts of human rights and fair and equal treatment of its own people are as foreign to us and ISIS seems to be from the rest of humanity?

Ultimately Congress has marked a red line in the sand in which any deal reached by the P5+1 must be reviewed by Congress and meet with its approval. Senators recognize giving mullahs in Iran a deal providing even the smallest wiggle room to push a nuclear warhead through would forever change the outlook not only for the region, but the rest of the world. Iran is no North Korea. It has proven oil reserves giving it access to all the military technology capability it needs to build and deliver a nuclear weapon.

When negotiators next sit down with their Iranian counterparts, they should be telling themselves “It’s about the humanity stupid.”

By Laura Carnahan

The Irony that is Iran

by

Trita Parsi Earplug (1)That ever loyal servant of the Iranian regime, Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, penned an editorial appearing in Reuters where he used a curious turn of phrase saying there were schools of “doubt” in Iran as to who was calling the policy shots in the U.S. He was pointing out a view that held Iran’s mullahs either believed President Obama was genuinely interested in a new rapprochement or was simply being captive to the politics of Congress.

Parsi attempts to lay out the idea that Iran is stuck between a rock and a hard place because it wants to do the best deal it can, but has to contend with confusing American politics.

For Parsi’s benefit, we should point out it is because this is a democracy. Get it?

Democracies are messy affairs. They involve open and sometimes hostile public debate. They require free and fair elections. They generate substantial discussion on news media and social media. They need checks and balances to ensure the rights of minorities are respected. In short, they do all the things Iran’s mullahs are terrified of in their own country.

Parsi also attempts to posit the idea that sanctions against Iran are fast coming undone because of a recent delay proposed by Senate Democrats to give President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry an additional two months to nudge Iran forward. Considering Iran has already had two years to stall, demand and berate negotiators, two months doesn’t seem like much.

Democrats, led by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) were also clear in demanding any deal be reviewed by Congress and that they would hold any proposal under close scrutiny in meeting their approval. Not exactly a Rose Garden walk-through for Iran, but then again Parsi will take anything. So desperate is Iran to gain any advantage, it would take even this twig and portray it as an olive tree.

Parsi goes on to portray the complete erosion of Democratic support for new sanctions, but the irony is that the Democratic and Republican proposal is not for the imposition of new sanctions, but simply the re-imposition of existing sanctions that were temporarily suspended after the interim agreement was reached and contingent on Iranian regime making substantial progress forward.

Since then, however Iran’s progress has been as quick as a snail and as noticeable as glaciers growing larger. The regime in Iran has consistently refused access to additional nuclear research sites to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has stepped up a brutal crackdown on human rights against its own citizens. It has engaged in four separate wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan now, while still supporting terror groups such as Hezbollah.

At no point has the regime in Iran made any substantial concessions on the core issues of reduction in centrifuge capacity and elimination of missile delivery technology obtained from North Korea, another rogue nuclear state.

With the spread of ISIS and Boko Haram and utter collapse of Yemen, the American people have raised concerns over terror above those of jobs and economy in recent polls. This leads one to wonder why Parsi takes the position that sanctions proponents are now on the margins in this debate.

We might excuse his hyperbole for the simple fact NIAC is a well-greased lackey for the mullahs in Iran, but considering the topic of his editorial, we might be more inclined to think Parsi shares the confusion of the mullahs in simply not understanding how a democratic society truly works.

While Parsi raises his histrionics, the fact remains Congress and a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republications numbering at least 62 Senators with an additional 14 patiently waiting two more months before pulling the proverbial trigger on sanctions are more than sufficient to re-impose sanctions and override any presidential veto. We assume Parsi is an intelligent operative for mullahs in Iran and can count votes, which may be why he is throwing everything he can in hopes something sticks before March 24th.

By Michael Tomlinson

Why Human Rights Matter in Iran Nuke Talks

by

Prison BarsThere has been a dirty little secret about the negotiations going on between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations seeking to limit Iran’s nuclear capability. It has hung like a cloud over two previous rounds of failed talks over the past years and threatens the third round of talks now underway.

What is it? The unwillingness of the P5+1 group to seriously raise the issue of Iran’s dismal human rights record and the need to make steep improvements in order for Iran to secure any kind of agreement.

For years now Iran’s ruling mullahs and their lobbying and PR machine in Washington, DC have argued strenuously that human rights issues are domestic ones and have no place at the bargaining table. In fact, the chief public face for Iran in the U.S., the National Iranian American Council has made the inclusion of human rights in talks a de facto red line in the sand, akin to asking mullahs in Iran to give up its military capabilities.

It is an odd position to be in since the U.S. has historically pushed for improved human rights situations as a condition of moving forward with international treaties and agreements with totalitarian regimes for decades. For example:

• The U.S. threatened to hold up China’s membership in the World Trade Organization if it did not improve its human rights situation in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre;
• The U.S. threatened to hold back on the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Mexico improved the plight of migrant workers and narco-terror gangs; and

So it is not unusual or inappropriate to broach such topics. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry just recently raised the issue of the arrest of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian during the most recent round of talks, opening the door to a broader discussion of Iran’s human rights violations.

Iran and its lobbying allies have long contended that talks should be strictly centered on the issue of nuclear research and development, but even that position is a canard since Iran routinely seeks to tie other issues to the talks such as the immediate suspension of economic sanctions or the release of frozen assets.

Why are human rights important to these talks?

Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen, the Treasury Department’s outgoing point man on Iran sanctions, said in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal that Iran was “stuck. They can’t fix this economy unless they get sanctions relief.” Adding “I think they are coming to the negotiations with their backs to the wall.”

A hopeful sign, but also one that reinforces the historic opportunity the West has to seek real and meaningful change in Iran for the Iranian people. In the past year under Hassan Rouhani, there has been a significant rise in a broad crackdown on political dissent, cultural expression, gender restrictions and access to uncensored information and sources.

According to Amnesty International, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran and various human rights groups on the ground such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran, public executions have taken off over the past year and reached over 1,000 men and women. Iranian regime’s notorious Evin Prison is now filled to capacity and the mullahs continues to aggressively fund terror groups such as Hezbollah and Houthis and engage in open wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.

More importantly, a nation’s view on human rights towards its own people is the most accurate gauge of its views on its neighbors and the world. By not involving human rights in these discussions, we leave out the one element that could truly make the West trust any agreement reached with Iran. Without a marked improvement in human rights, there can be no guarantees or assurances that Iran would ever live up to whatever bargain it brokered out of economic necessity and not from a worldview that it was right or a moral decision.

By Michael Tomlinson