Iran Lobby

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

The Top 1 Percent in the Iran Regime

by

Rich Kids of Tehran1A bright yellow Porsche Boxster GTS driven by a young woman from a poorer neighborhood of Tehran with the wealthy owner a grandson of a high ranking mullah next to her hit speeds of 120 miles per hour before losing control and slamming into a tree; instantly killing the 20 year old woman with the 21 year old owner dying hours later of injuries.

The crash, which otherwise might have drawn scant attention in New York, Paris or Tokyo, caused a firestorm in tightly controlled Iran where social media has fueled pent-up outrage over the chasm between the rich, wealthy elites of the ruling class and the hardscrabble lives of ordinary Iranians. To make matters worse, the man killed was engaged to be married, but not to his young companion, furthering the perception that the strict laws and harsh penalties imposed by the regime’s mullahs exempt their own families and supporters.

The glaring contradiction in having unmarried a man and woman together in a society where a woman found in the company of a man other than her family can result in a swift beating by Basiji paramilitary militia reveals the hypocrisy running rife through the regime’s leadership.

The flow of cash and wealth to a select few, the regime’s own 1 percent, is the product of efforts by the regime to circumvent economic sanctions put in place to slow down Iran’s nuclear program, but have turned into a lucrative illicit trade benefitting just a few and helping to fuel the regime’s support for terror groups and its many proxy wars it is engaged in, most recently in Yemen.

The allocation of wealth within the regime based on family connections or need to fund overseas expansion of its extremist religion leaves ordinary Iranians struggling amidst the excessive display of wealth by family members of mullahs and those connected to the Revolutionary Guards Corps which controls vast sections of Iran’s economy and industry.

All of which is another reason why the ruling mullahs, including top mullah Ali Khamenei, have been absolutely adamant on the unconditional and total lifting of all economic sanctions, including U.S., European Union and United Nations penalties because they want to open the floodgates to foreign investment further enriching them and their families.

But the regime is a master of contrary perceptions to suit its needs. Another example was a speech by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in New York where he chastised Sunni Arab nations’ air campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, and yet refused to accept the regime’s $35 billion annual support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a similar vein, even with Iranian Quds Force fighters actively fighting on the ground.

But it seems Zarif has become as adept at speaking out of both sides of his mouth as his loyal supporters in the U.S. such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council. In an interview on Charlie Rose’s show, Zarif insisted the regime did not imprison people for mere opinions.

“We do not jail people for their opinions,” Zarif said. His comments were met by derision on social media from former political prisoners to call him a liar pointing out dozens of political prisoners including journalists, bloggers, political activists and other dissidents languishing in Iranian prisons.

In the most blatant example of these flip-flops, the regime moved forward with the arrest of human rights activist Narges Mohammadi this week. She was scheduled to appear in court in connection with a new case filed against her by regime authorities, but a request for a delay in that case was denied, leaving her lawyer no time to study the charges against her. Her situation remains in doubt.

While the regime continues to enrich its own members, at the expense of Iranian citizens, it also continues to oppress the same people it is depriving of an economic future. Unfortunately, there can be no Occupy Wall Street movement in Tehran since protest is likely to send you straight to Evin Prison like so many others.

By Laura Carnahan

Scrutiny of Iran Regime Increasing Over The Nuclear Talks

by

Magnifying ScrutinyDespite the best efforts of lobbying allies of the Iran regime, including the National Iranian American Council, scrutiny of Iran’s actions and its policies are intensifying with the perception that this latest third round of talks will be the last chance for the Obama administration to close a deal.

With the stakes high, news organizations are finally turning their attention on the regime, and in light of the latest proxy wars started by Iran in Yemen, journalists are taking heed of what those acts may portend for a possible deal.

One such area of increased attention was the collective warning from Sunni Arab leaders to the U.S. that Iran’s role in arming and funding Shiite allies in the Middle East is powering extremist groups like Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

These same Arab leaders are pressing the Obama administration to more aggressively support Saudi Arabia and its allies in pushing back Iranian influence in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in order to drain support for Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

Journalistic skepticism continued with the apparent contradiction over the issue of the economic sanctions should a nuclear deal be completed. Bloomberg View columnist Josh Rogin detailed speeches by Vice President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in which they outlined the administration plan to only lift sanctions after many years of compliance and only through Congressional action.

But “that explanation directly conflicts with what Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told an audience at New York University earlier that day,” Rogin wrote.” Zarif said that UN sanctions would be lifted within days of an agreement being signed and that all sanctions would be permanently lifted, including Congressional sanctions, once Iran met its initial obligations.”

In Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin offered similar skepticism over the idea of “snapback sanctions” actually being of any effect. He correctly points out a critical flaw in the deal being contemplated:

“Just as important, the administration is drawing a broad distinction between branches of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the regime’s terror sponsor as well as an economic powerhouse. Lew promised that the U.S. would rightly hold the IRGC’s Quds Force responsible for its terrorist actions and keep sanctions in place on them. But the rest of the IRGC’s vast infrastructure will be exempt from sanctions after the deal is implemented. Such a distinction will enable Tehran to go on funding terrorism through the IRGC’s vast holdings that amount to a third of the Iranian economy. Money, like terrorism is fungible but if you’re determined to turn a blind eye to how the Iranian regime operates, anything is possible.”

But besides focus on the Iran regime’s foreign policy and nuclear talks, journalists are taking a closer look at the human rights abuses that continue to grow in new and alarming ways.

Agence France-Presse ran a story on the regime’s efforts to outlaw certain styles of haircuts for young Iranian men that the mullahs viewed as subversive and oddly “devil worshipping.”

Mostafa Govahi, the head of Iran’s Barbers Union, was quoted in the state-run ISNA news agency that “any shop that cuts hair in the devil worshipping style will be harshly dealt with and their license revoked,’ he said, noting that if a business cut hair in such a style this would ‘violate the Islamic system’s regulations.”

In addition, the mullahs aimed to ban tattoos, tanning beds and the plucking of eyebrows in a departure into the realm of weirdness. We can only assume given the regime’s preference for imprisonment and public hangings, haircutting in Iran might now be considered a dangerous profession.

And in a further embarrassment to those supporting a nuclear deal with Iran, the Observer chronicled the plight of homosexuals in Iran where an estimated 4,000-6,000 gays and lesbians have been executed by the regime since 1979 to today.

At a time when the U.S. is having a national debate over same-sex marriage, there is scant attention being paid to the abuses gays are undergoing in Iran; until now.

All of which points to the growing and well deserved scrutiny the regime is now undergoing. We can only hope the effect of a magnifying glass aimed at the regime’s policies will be similar to putting a bug under the burning glare of the sun.

By Michael Tomlinson

High Seas Drama Proves Iran Regime Untrustworthy

by

Maersk TigrisWhile the Iran regime has been working hard to portray itself as a peace-loving group of mullahs only interested in the peaceful splitting of the atom, drama was playing out on the high seas as Iran engaged in a high-stakes poker game with the U.S. Navy and commercial fishing vessels much to the consternation of the regime’s lobbying and PR allies who had to answer some uncomfortable questions.

It began last week with the decision by the mullahs to send a nine-ship convoy steaming towards Yemen with what was believed to be a large cache of supplies and weapons for Houthis rebels they had been backing in the overthrow of Yemen’s government.

This was followed by the decision to send in the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt with escorts into the Gulf of Aden to deter and possibly detain the Iranian flotilla, which eventually turned back to Iranian waters.

Then this week saw an act bordering on piracy when Iranian navy ships fired across the bow of a Marshall Island-flagged container ship steaming through the Straits of Hormuz. After the ship refused to turn towards Iranian waters, it was boarded and the 24-man crew detained and the ship confiscated over a reported legal dispute.

Earlier reports indicated the Iranian navy ships had reportedly been on the lookout for a U.S.-flagged commercial ship and mistakenly stopped the Maersk Tigris. The U.S. and Marshall Islands share a defense treaty and it remains to be seen if the boarding of the vessel would trigger the security agreement.

The rapid escalation in provocative moves by the regime in international waters has posed a sticky problem for regime supporters, even Congressional supporters of a nuclear agreement with Iran were at a loss of explanation for the actions.

“We have to assure the sea lanes are open. I think it’s important to find out exactly what happened,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the Armed Services Committee’s ranking Democratic member.

“But we can’t tolerate interference with vessels moving up and down in international waters. It’s very serious when ships are intercepted like that,” he said.

In response, the U.S. Navy instituted a new policy of escorting commercial ships through the Persian Gulf and monitor for any distress signals sent out from vessels traversing the Straits of Hormuz in clear warning to the mullah’s regime in Iran.

Reza Marashi, who has entitled himself as “research director” of the regime’s chief lobbying group the National Iranian American Council, offered the ludicrous notion that Iran may have boarded the ship because of suspicions it was from rival Saudi Arabia and heading to the United Arab Emirates.

“If that’s true, it could be part of an escalation in the conflict between Tehran and Riyadh,” Marashi said. One theory he offered was that the Iranians could be retaliating for the Saudi bombing of a landing strip in Yemen where Iran was said to be planning to land a plane.

Marashi probably would have also offered as explanation that Mercury was in retrograde or aliens had seized control of the Iranian navy commander’s brain since those excuses made as much sense for the regime’s blatant disregard for international maritime law.

All of which poses a pickle for supporters such as the NIAC who have long argued that the Iran regime could be a trustworthy and believable partner in an international nuclear agreement, but is now faced with yet another inconvenient example of Iran’s mullahs flouting the law.

The near constant displays of disregard for agreements, treaties and law by Iran’s mullahs should not catch anyone unawares and only reinforces the growing perception in America that any agreement Iran signs will not be worth the paper it’s printed on.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Weakening Arguments of the Iran Lobby

by

A new Fox News poll showed a new record low of the administration’s handling of the Iran regime. By a 51-34 percent margin, American voters think President Obama is “being too soft” rather than “striking the right balance” in nuclear talks with Iran. The sizable 17-point margin reflects negative opinion among Democrats, Republicans and independents, with a paltry two percent thinking the administration was “being too tough” on Iran. Untitled-1

The poll also reflected growing opinion among Americans that any deal made with the regime would not work with half believing negotiating itself was the wrong thing to do since Iran’s mullahs could not be trusted to honor any agreement.

Overall, 65 percent of voters think the Iran regime poses a real national security threat to the U.S., representing a slight increase from the 62 percent who felt that way in 2006; a remarkable statistic after nearly a decade of effort by the regime’s allies and lobbyists who have worked tirelessly in an attempt to change the regime’s image with American voters.

The poll also indicated strong support for congressional approval of any deal with a whopping 76 percent supporting it; a troubling sign for the efforts by regime allies such as the National Iranian American Council who have launched several grassroots efforts to bypass Congress and failing at each point. The effectiveness of the NIAC efforts is akin to a weakling trying to lift weights and failing.

But even once staunch allies of the administration’s policies have voiced real concerns over the future direction Iran’s leaders might take should a nuclear agreement come to fruition. Writing in MSNBC, Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said “a nuclear deal won’t alter the fundamental drivers of Iran’s efforts to extend its influence across the Middle East and it won’t sever Tehran’s relationships with the violent, often destabilizing proxy groups it supports and directs in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and beyond.”

“Nor, for that matter, would a nuclear deal have much immediate positive effect on the Iranian government’s treatment of its own people or its handling of judicial cases against Iranian-Americans, several of whom are currently held in Iranian prisons on trumped up charges,” Maloney adds.

Maloney correctly recognizes that the regime’s aims are not resource-driven, but ideological in nature, and the prize of lifting economic sanctions could flood Iran with over $100 billion in frozen assets in a windfall energizing the regime’s proxy wars and efforts to spread its influence far abroad. This deluge of cash is precisely what the mullahs are aiming for and what troubles American voters and allies who recognize what that kind of money could do for Iran’s leaders.

The argument posed by Iran’s lobbying machine that the assets would help ordinary Iranians is so much balderdash as Maloney notes “in fact, (Iran’s) most destabilizing policies have persisted and even worsened during times of economic pressure.” Ironically while the economy is at the verge of bankruptcy, Rouhani’s government has dedicated a bigger budget to the security forces this year in comparison to his “hardliner” predecessor that clearly washes away the illusion of moderation within mullah’s government

All of this serves as backdrop to Secretary of State John Kerry beginning another round of talks by meeting with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in New York on Monday on the sidelines of the 2015 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference with pressure mounting on the administration to hold firm for a deal that can pass congressional muster.

The point of maximum leverage for the P5+1 group of nations appears to be now with Iran’s leadership straining to keep its commitments in four major proxy wars going on at the same time in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen straining its economy and budget to the breaking point.

With the backing of the American people, the U.S. should hold out only for a deal that does not reward Iran’s mullahs, but instead reins them in.

By Michael Tomlinson

Connecting Human Rights to Iran Nuclear Deal

by

Iran Beating (1)During the third round of ongoing talks between the P5+1 and the Iran regime, there has been much discussion about centrifuges, enriched uranium stockpiles and reactor designs, but there has been scant discussion about the most pressing problem and that is the pitiful state of human rights within Iran and in areas of Iranian influence.

Reagan’s famous remarks about the Evil Empire could today be paraphrased to say: “The Iran regime is an Evil Empire, and the extremist Islam is the focus of evil in the modern world.”

The regime’s dismal human rights record is beyond dispute from official sources such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Mr. Ahmed Shaheed, who has now issued several blistering reports condemning mass arrests, torture and killings by the Iran regime.

Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International have similarly condemned the Iran regime for the large increase in public executions, arrests and imprisonment without trial or charge for political dissidents, religious minorities, foreign citizens and ordinary Iranians for innocuous acts such as posting mash up videos on the Internet.

The sharp increases of brutality under the tenure of president Hassan Rouhani has coincided with ongoing nuclear talks, as well as the launching of several proxy wars by Iran’s military and intelligence services under the mandate of Iran’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei, including the sectarian civil war in Syria, the rise of warring terror groups in Iraq and the overthrow of the Yemen government, all with backing and coordination from Iran.

There has also been some questions and criticism being raised in the U.S. and amongst other nations negotiating with the regime that the lack of focus and inclusion of human rights is a serious mistake and may let Iran’s mullahs “off the hook” so to speak and allow them to gain significant relief from economic sanctions without having to make any changes in their foreign or domestic policy.

At the core of any successful nuclear deal must be the confidence that Iran will abide by it. An improved human rights record would provide the evidence necessary that regime change was possible moving forward. Without it, how can any signatory nation truly believe that Iran mullah’s signature was worth the paper it was affixed to?

Not holding Iran’s mullahs accountable for human rights violations and tying a comprehensive nuclear accord to a nuclear agreement would be devastating for the thousands being held captive not only in Iran, but in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, as well as all those suffering under extremist groups radicalized by Iran’s mullahs in places such as Libya, Egypt, Nigeria and Afghanistan.

By Laura Carnahan

 

The Moral Evil of the Iran Lobby

by

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

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

With debate building over the proposed framework agreement between the P5+1 and the Iran regime, one of the most compelling questions arising is also the most relevant: “How can any agreement signed by an evil and corrupt regime be trusted?”

Any nation state can be relied upon to operate within the confines of an international community based on several factors. These might include the personal conviction and force of will of its leader or the guarantees embodied in its constitution. It might also be as a result of its culture, history or even religion.

In the case of the Iran regime though, the evidence is overwhelming of not only its moral failure to abide by international standards of peace and civility, but also the moral core of its leadership can be summed up as being one of “convenience in service to theology.”

Iran’s mullahs have been guilty of fomenting terror attacks through proxies such as Hezbollah which have claimed thousands of lives all around the world. They have been guilty of spreading an extremist form of Islam that has sparked sectarian conflicts throughout the Mideast and Africa, claiming thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands. They have been guilty of brutal atrocities and human rights violations on their own people in order to stifle dissent including thousands of hangings and punishments that could only be described as medieval.

Iran’s mullahs have denigrated women, targeted religious minorities and even made the simple act of web surfing a crime punishable by imprisonment. It is a leadership willing to contemplate the development of nuclear weapons as a tool of political expediency. It is a leadership claiming the mantle of religious certainty, but instead uses its power to enrich themselves and their families in a familiar reminder of feudal dynasties.

Aiding and abetting that corrupt regime is a lobbying effort that similarly turns a deaf ear and blind eye to the suffering being meted out by these mullahs. Groups such as the National Iranian American Council and its bosses Trita Parsi, Reza Marashi and others, have loyally placed the value of their contracts to Tehran above the morality required to do good in the world.

Haile Selassie, the former emperor of Ethiopia, famously said to the international community in the League of Nations when Italy invaded and used chemical weapons on his people:

“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

The international community did not rise up. Only five nations protested the invasion and slaughter of his people and in response, Selassie became an outspoken advocate the rest of his life to international security and multilateral support of justice.

The lack of protest, discussion and debate by the Iran lobby over the voluminous injustices and cruelties dispensed by the Iran regime is damning evidence of the lack of moral fiber within groups like the NIAC.

It leaves one wondering just who these men and women are that write editorials, lobby and speak on behalf of the barbarous cruelty of the mullahs. Are they just collecting a paycheck or do they honestly believe and support the mission of the Iran regime to remake the world in the image of its intolerant, extremist and cruel selves?

Selassie was right that by standing by mutely watching these things happen, the NIAC is just as evil and corrupt as the mullahs they defend.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

Iran Regime Rulers Undermine NIAC Claims…Again

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a question worth supporting.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Lobby Losing Grip on Congress

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran – Same Story, Different Year for Regime Talks

by

Deal Sort of !

Deal Sort of !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Michael Tomlinson

Regime Lobbyist NIAC Deep in U.S. Govt.

by

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

By Michael Tomlinson