Iran Lobby

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

Iran Lobby Loses 98-1 in Senate Vote

by

98-1 VoteThe Senate voted by a whopping 98-1 margin to approve the Corker-Menendez bill giving it 30 days to review and approve or vote down any nuclear agreement negotiated with the Iran regime and the P5+1 group of nations; affirming the utter failure by Iran’s lobbyists to halt the drive for Congressional review.

While the passage of this landmark legislation – where it is headed towards a similar passage in the House – represents the hard work of a bipartisan coalition of legislators to wedge Congress into the Iran nuclear talks, it boldly shows the ineffectual nature of the Iran lobby, especially the National Iranian American Council led by Trita Parsi.

The NIAC has loudly opposed any effort to allow Congress approval of any deal. When the Corker-Menendez bill was first introduced, NIAC issued a quick denouncement warning that “under this legislation, Congress would delay the implementation of any nuclear deal reached with Iran while deciding whether to permanently remove the President’s powers to execute a deal.”

The NIAC rightly recognizes that allowing Congress to approve any deal would bring the regime’s conduct into the equation and allow a public debate on whether or not a regime involved in proxy wars, terrorist activities, brutal human rights abuses and provoking sectarian civil wars is trustworthy enough for an agreement.

A recent NBC News poll found 68 percent of Americans believed Iran was either not too likely or not likely at all to abide by a nuclear agreement. Senators are not dumb, they can read a poll better than anyone else and these types of numbers compelled them to ignore the complaints of the Iran lobby and opt for further oversight.

But the legislative win wasn’t complete. There still remained within the bill some troubling provisions outlined by the Washington Post and decried by co-sponsor Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) including “provisions that may wind up in a final deal — affording Iran immediate sanctions relief (‘a signing bonus’), allowing Iran to keep working on advanced research, reliance on the faulty concept of snapback sanctions, the failure to secure anytime/any place inspections, Iran’s refusal to come clean on past military dimensions of the program and excluding terrorism from sanctions consideration.”

But Sen. Menendez signaled that this bill would not be the final word on the Iran regime’s conduct, promising additional legislation.

“I stand ready to work with colleagues immediately on pursuing other concerns such as missile technology, such as terrorism, such as their human rights violations, such as their anti-Semitism, such as the Americans who are being held hostage. And to look at either sanctions or enhanced sanctions if they already exist on some of these elements that we should be considering. That is separate and apart from a nuclear program,” he said.

The NIAC, stinging from the Senate defeat, has turned its attention to the upcoming House vote, where it is also headed to another defeat, placing its hopes in a letter circulated among Democratic House members urging President Obama to stay the course in seeking a deal with the Iran regime. The letter, signed by 150 House members, including six non-voting members from U.S. territories, does not represent enough members to halt an override of a presidential veto.

It is clear that even after a “all hands on deck” mobilization by the NIAC to get enough signatures for the House letter, knowing the overwhelming defeat it faced in the Senate, it still could not muster the 145 House members necessary to sustain a presidential veto and instead attempted to hide the failure by counting the six non-voting members.

The fact that NIAC attempted this pathetic fig leaf did little to hide its waning ability to influence the ongoing nuclear debate.

By Michael Tomlinson

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

Important Day for Voice of Opposition to Iran Regime

by

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, testifying before the US Congress via video conference

Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, testifying before the US Congress via video conference

The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade held a hearing on Capitol Hill on the rise and threat posed by ISIS. That in and of itself is not earthshattering news since elected officials have debated heatedly how to address the growing pandemic that is extremist Islamic groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram and the Houthis.

hat was significant was the witness list of speakers because on it was Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading Iranian dissident group, who made an appearance via videoconference. It was an important appearance because it represented a key opportunity for the strongest voice of the largest grassroots dissident group to the regime to address Congress on the links between ISIS and Iran.

As Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) noted in his comments, the NCRI has proven instrumental in the past in revealing secrets the Iran regime has sought to keep hidden from the outside world such as the secret Natanz nuclear research facility.

Mrs. Rajavi was given the opportunity by the subcommittee because NCRI members have been on the ground in Iran and Iraq having vast knowledge of the situation as the main opposition to the regime in Iran and given the role of the Iranian regime in all crisis in the region. Because there are literally hundreds of thousands of people displaced or brutalized by ISIS and militia forces controlled and directed by Iran’s mullahs, the NCRI has shown itself to be very knowledgeable regarding the regime’s activities in the region.

In her comments to the subcommittee, Mrs. Rajavi explained the origins of ISIS, such as the funding and training of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Iran, including even a doctorate degree in Islamic jurisprudence from Baghdad Islamic University, along with Iranian support for other key ISIS founders who arose out of the war fought against U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Iraq and the sectarian civil war in Syria that Iran was backing.

Mrs. Rajavi dubbed the Iran regime as the “godfather” of the Islamic State militant group and noted that “the ultimate solution to this problem is regime change.”

She went on to explain the core issue linking the Iran regime and the Islamic State was the perpetuation of violent and extremist Islamic teachings which provided a template of terror, brutality and abuse for terror groups to follow.

And in a clear warning to Representatives in attendance, she urged caution in approving any nuclear deal that rewarded Iran with economic relief without concrete proof of dismantling of its nuclear program.

“None of the sanctions should be lifted before an agreement has been signed that effectively and definitively denies the mullahs the bomb,” Mrs. Rajavi said. “Otherwise, the regime will spend billions of unfrozen assets to buy weapons, including advanced missiles from Russia.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) praised Ms. Rajavi’s appearance as well and called the session “a historic hearing,” notable for bringing Iran’s opposition into official discourse.

That, more than anything else, was what the Iran regime’s lobbying and PR machine feared the most. The idea that a moderate, Muslim woman, leading a group of dissidents to Iran’s mullahs, would actually be able to speak before the greatest legislative body in the world and tell simply and matter-of-factly of the horrors and abuses being visited on thousands of her fellow Iranian citizens.

It is even more laughable when you hear of some of the complaints voiced by these regime apologists who apply one standard to the NCRI in denouncing it, yet in another breath argue for open and honest dialogue and trust with the Iran regime that has a three decade history of kidnapping, targeting, attacking and killing thousands of American military and civilian personnel in places such as Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

The fact that Mrs. Rajavi was able to speak represents a small, but historic step in allowing the voices of those most oppressed to finally have a voice and a forum.

By Laura Carnahan

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

Standing Up to Iran Regime Delivers Results

by

US carrier (1)A curious thing happened the other day. A nine-ship Iranian convoy believed to be filled with weapons bound for Houthi rebels in Yemen turned around after being followed by U.S. warships stationed in the area to prevent covert arms shipments. The convoy of seven freighters and two military frigates turned back to Iranian waters after nine U.S. Navy vessels set a parallel course alongside to monitor them.

Why is this significant? Because it represented one of the few opportunities lately where a direct response to a potential Iran regime violation of international agreements led to the mullahs backing down. Prior to this, the regime had aggressively flouted international agreements by funding Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after his forces used chemical weapons, supplied terror groups and Shiite militias in Iraq and Lebanon targeting Christians, Sunni Muslims, political dissidents, and engaging in a secret and rapid build-up in its nuclear enrichment program; all of which were acts done without a strong, determined international response.

In fact, Iran’s mullahs have long gambled on international passiveness to make their gains in proxy wars, territory or concessions in nuclear talks. It is a strategy built on the idea that if you cause enough chaos, people will look to anyone who might offer some solution – even the people who started the problems in the first place.

Historians have long called this policy by another name: “appeasement.” It’s a term filled with notoriety, especially after the failed effort by Western allies to sway Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler from his path to war by offering up parts of annexed countries like so many pork chops.

This policy of appeasement has never proven to work, yet diplomats consistently go back to it over and over again and use different names to describe it: “rapprochement,” “dialogue,” or “engagement.” In each case, it is another form of appeasement and does nothing to sway bullies, thugs or tyrants, instead encouraging them.

To use the analogy, it’s like giving a predator pieces of red meat in the hopes it doesn’t eat you. Eventually you get eaten as well since all you’ve done is stoke the hunger and identified yourself as being part of the food chain.

Iran’s mullahs have been emboldened by the weak response by the international community to its efforts to take over its neighbors and spread its form of extremist ideology. Boko Haram’s mass killings and kidnappings in Nigeria is met with hashtag slogans. Iraq’s exclusion of Sunni coalition partners is met with diplomatic shrugs. Even Yemen’s quick collapse elicited scant reactions until Saudi Arabia finally raised the alarm and put together an Arab coalition and started responding.

It is beyond mere coincidence that the Arab air campaign was suspended the day the U.S. nuclear aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and her battle group were moved into the Gulf of Aden. It is also no coincidence that Iran turned back its arms convoy because the mullahs have correctly calculated they could not push their luck.

This reveals the key weakness of the mullahs ruling Iran which is when push comes to shove, they are not willing to push back. Iranian regime lacks the military capability for a traditional and modern military, having diverted funding to terror groups and lining the pockets of regime elites and their families.

After going all in with deep investment in its nuclear program, coupled with crippling economic sanctions and dropping oil prices, Iran’s mullahs now find their military capabilities to be severely limited. This was shown nowhere else more clearly than in the failed offensive mounted by Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq who failed to take Tikrit and instead had to rely on U.S. airpower to help Iraqi forces take the city and save the effort.

A humbling moment and one that crystalized one key fact: when confronted by strong, unified action, the mullahs will back down. It’s a wonder why the same approach has not been used in nuclear talks instead of waving the white flag and giving into to whatever the mullahs want.

Fortunately, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have recognized this weakness of the mullahs and have decided to stand strong in voting for a voice in the nuclear talks through the Corker-Menendez bill and send a strong signal to the mullahs that the days of appeasement may finally be over.

By Laura Carnahan

Extremist Islam is All the Same to the Iran Regime

by

Iran MullahsMuch has been made of the fighting going all between various extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Houthis, Boko Haram and Shiite militias, but what is not being discussed is the truth underlying all these groups; which is they share a bloody vision of regional and global domination fueled by a fanatical adherence to an extremist version of Islam.

While there may be superficial differences in their viewpoints, there is no difference in the methodology of expressing that religious view. It often involves mass kidnappings, beheadings, executions, enforced slavery, torture, savage fighting and sophisticated use of social media to gain followers and spread propaganda.

The roots of all this extremism does not lay within these desperate groups or in the conflicts they are fighting in. It lies solely within the religious fanaticism factory that is the Iran regime.

The mullahs in control in Iran have laid the groundwork for virtually all of the religiously driven terror groups and proxies now fighting throughout the world. Beginning with the funding and support of Hezbollah in its drive to take over Lebanon and attack U.S. personnel there, culminating with the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 killing 241 service personnel, Iran’s mullahs have artfully fueled religious violence and terror, more than anywhere else back at home by killing, torturing and imprisoning hundreds of thousands in the past 3 decades.

The regime in Iran continued that tactic through the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan where Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel helped train and supply insurgents with the deadly improvised explosive devices that claimed thousands of U.S. and coalition lives.

That chain of extremist violence extends to the sectarian civil war Iran spawned in Syria and the rise of ISIS in Iraq and elsewhere. Iranian mullahs have always sought to use these proxy wars as a means to an end and set the scales of international public opinion tilting in their favor.

How else could Iran’s mullahs achieve the preposterous notion that Iran was bravely fighting against ISIS through its military assets and Shiite militias, even though it helped create the conditions in the first place for ISIS’ birth and rapid expansion in Iraq.

Writing in the New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman was correct when he said: “When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble.”

The violence and hatred espoused by ISIS as it beheads Christians or Boko Haram as it kidnaps girls or Al-Qaeda as it bombs mosques all springs forth from the hatred and vitriol spewed by Iran’s ruling mullahs. The same mullahs that pass laws legalizing misogyny or criminalize a woman’s appearance or sanction the public hanging of political dissidents are the same ones providing the template of hate for these violent groups.

It is ironic that the three large Muslim nations, Indonesia, India and Malaysia are largely free of violent extremism, which is due in no large part to the development of tolerant, multicultural societies where the secular rules the sectarian; where the religiously motivated whims of a few dozen old mullahs do not hold sway over the vastness of a region stretching from the Mediterranean to Indian Ocean.

One group which has long recognized this contagion of violent theocracy is the National Council of Resistance of Iran, one of the largest Iranian dissident groups. Its leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi has outlined a ten point plan that casts out the policies and medieval practices of the mullahs and replaces them with the modern, democratic principles so necessary in a civilized society.

We can only hope that the seeds for regime change can be planted amongst all this turmoil and a new Iran born out of it.

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

 

Iran Lobby-Attempts To Seal A Deal

by

Iran Lobby trying to seal a deal

Iran Lobby trying to seal a deal

The phrase “cause and effect” can be applied to virtually every facet of life; from history, physics, marketing, politics and even the dinosaurs. Such a small phrase embodies so many connections in today’s world between actions and the aftermath of those actions.

In the context of today’s volatile Middle East, the Iran regime’s top lobbyist, the National Iranian American Council has argued its own cause and effect strenuously saying that failure to seal a deal on nuclear weapons development would inevitably lead to war, regardless of the facts failing to indicate any path to war.

But on the flip side, the NIAC has just as vigorously opposed any causal connection between the actions of the regime’s mullahs in directing a slew of proxy wars and human rights abuses and their ability to abide by any international agreement they sign.

Any objective observer can draw a straight line from point A to point B when looking at the cause and effects of Iran’s actions. For example:

  • The regime’s crackdown on opponents and protests through arrests, torture, imprisonment and public executions have effectively muzzled dissent at home;
  • The regime’s violation of international inspection agreements over the past decade have allowed it to quadruple the number of centrifuges it added to enrich uranium for its nuclear program; and
  • The regime’s support of proxies and terror groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have allowed it to build a buffer of extremist Shiite support surrounding it, displacing hundreds of thousands of refugees and killing tens of thousands of men, women and children.

The fact that Iran has engaged in nuclear talks over the past three years while it has engaged in a slew of blatantly arrogant moves in violation of the spirit of those talks has laid bare the hypocrisy of the regime and its supporters.

Even today, cybersecurity firm Norse and the American Enterprise Institute released a new study chronicling the regime’s dramatic increase in cyberattacks on thousands of American targets. According to The New York Times, “the report, and a similar one from Cylance, another cybersecurity firm, make clear that Iranian hackers are moving from ostentatious cyberattacks in which they deface websites or simply knock them offline to much quieter reconnaissance. In some cases, they appear to be probing for critical infrastructure systems that could provide opportunities for more dangerous and destructive attacks.”

Norse’s study shows the Iran regime’s attacks have shown no signs of letting up, even during critical nuclear talks. Between January 2014 and just last month, Norse’s sensors picked up a whopping 115 percent increase in attacks launched from Iranian controlled Internet protocol, or I.P. addresses, with more than 900 attacks daily in the first half of March alone.

At a time when the leverage the West has over the regime through these talks is significant because of the economic mess the mullahs have created, it is a lost opportunity not to force changes upon the conduct of the regime.

The old proverb, “Turnabout is fair play” certainly applies here and especially with the NIAC who have made a living on accusing the West of double standards in its actions towards Iran, but yet do not hold Iran’s mullahs to the same standards.

It makes sense and is imperative that we understand the true nature of the effects the regime’s actions and lay the blame squarely at the feet of the mullahs ruling Iran.

 

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

The Iran Lobby vs. Congress

by

Royce and EngelA veto-proof, bipartisan majority of House lawmakers signed an open letter to President Barack Obama yesterday warning him that any agreement reached with the Iranian regime on its nuclear weapons program will require congressional approval for implementation.

While the Senate has begun considering bipartisan legislation mandating review of any agreement by Congress, the House letter outlined another possible venue for halting an agreement by refusing to roll back any sanctions levied on Iran.

The letter, signed by 367 members of the House represented a large bipartisan swath of both sides of the political aisle, putting efforts by the Iranian lobby working hard to forestall any such congressional action as fruitless so far.

‘Should an agreement with the regime in Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation. In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief,” members wrote in the letter which was led by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and ranking member Eliot Engel (D-NY).

The House letter follows a letter sent by 47 Republican Senators to the Iranian regime and precedes what will likely be Senate action after the recess where Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) announced on Friday he would schedule a committee vote April 14 on a bill that would allow Congress 60 days to review any deal before its implementation.

The momentum for congressional review and approval continues to grow as the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate rapidly, largely because of the Iranian regime’s manipulations and involvement.

Yemen, which had been held up as a showcase in the fight against terror by the Obama administration six months ago, has collapsed with the U.S. embassy closing and all U.S. Special Forces being hastily withdrawn as Iranian-backed Houthi rebel extremists swiftly took over the government. Yemen, which shares a border with Iranian regime foe Saudi Arabia, now appears headed towards a Syria-like civil war.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Quds Force and other Revolutionary Guard Corps units have effectively taken over Iraq and are busy entrenching Shiite militias, supplanting Iraqi army units in the war with ISIS.

The situation with ISIS grows more anxious as Boko Haram and other extremist groups pledge their allegiance and enable the terror group to expand its reach into Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Afghanistan and even into Turkey.
All of which has rightly caused Democrat and Republican lawmakers to worry about where the P5+1 negotiations are going. Not helping has been the veritable cloak of secrecy that have covered these talks and failed to win any confidence from the American public faced with growing fears of terrorism and an Iranian regime seemingly with a finger in every terror pie around the world.

In the face of all this, the Iranian lobby, led by the National Iranian American Council, has failed to make much of an appreciable dent. It’s only ally, and arguably its most important, seems to be an Obama administration bent on grasping onto any deal in order to trumpet a foreign policy win amidst a dearth of good news from around the world.

By Michael Tomlinson