Iran Lobby

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

Iran Lobby Turns to Dubious List of Hate Apologists

by

Iran Lobby Turns to Dubious List of Hate Apologists

Iran Lobby Turns to Dubious List of Hate Apologists

The National Iranian American Council demonstrated its full-fledged commitment to supporting the Iran regime at any cost by issuing what could only be described as anarchist’s playlist of a press release full of terror supporters, hate apologists and regime sympathizers in a letter purporting to show “prominent international relations scholars” voicing their support for the Iran nuclear deal.

The letter is a farce – to put it mildly – because it omits the one phrase that dominates everything about the Iran regime: Human Rights.

Feel free to search the text of the NIAC release. It doesn’t exist anywhere in the letter, which should come as no surprise since it is the fatal flaw in all things the NIAC is involved in. Human rights for the NIAC are an inconvenient truth. It is the Achilles heel of its arguments in portraying a new “moderate” Iran.

While NIAC staffers such as Trita Parsi, Reza Marashi, Jamal Abdi and Tyler Cullis shout until veins bulge out of their collective necks that the mullahs deserve a break, they continue to blatantly ignore the incalculable human suffering being inflicted by those same mullahs on women, children, Christians, Iranian-Americans, Sunnis in Iraq, moderates in Syria or refugees in Yemen. The swatch of human suffering and misery caused by the mullahs has earned neither reproach nor condemnation by the NIAC and its allies.

The fact that this bogus letter excludes any mention of human rights is not unusual since the signers of the letter are culled from some of the most notorious corners of the academic world funded by regime sponsors and used as tools in defending terror groups, propagating hatred and applauding murder and mayhem.

Article in Breitbart delved deep into the histories and backgrounds of many of these academic frauds, noting “quite a few of the ‘prominent’ professors share radical views pertaining to issues of concern to everyday Americans. This list includes terror group sympathizers, Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, Iranian regime apologists, Islamist supremacists, anti-Israel conspiracy theorists, overt anti-Semites, and other deplorable characters.”

“One of the most notable signatories is Noam Chomsky, who rose to fame as an MIT linguistics expert and now considers himself an international relations scholar. Chomsky, whom some believe is an anti-Semite, openly supports Iran-backed terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas,” Schahtel added.

Article published in Breitbart also reminds us that Parsi, also a signatory on the list of pro-deal “scholars,” made headlines last week when he alleged there was an Israeli conspiracy behind a report that presented the text of the “side deal” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Additionally, several prominent Iranian dissidents have complained that Parsi’s agenda parallels that of the theocracy in Tehran.

But that has been the glaring aspect of NIAC’s fanatical devotion to the Iran regime agenda; the open unwillingness to criticize or comment on the human toll inflicted by the regime’s actions. NIAC has not argued against the retribution murders committed by Shiite militias supported by Iranian regime’s Quds Forces in Iraq as they slaughter entire Sunni villages.

NIAC has not commented on the horrific conditions in refugee camps caused by Iran regime proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. Nor has Parsi or his cohorts ever applauded efforts by groups such as Amnesty International or the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran as they have condemned and battled the over 2,000 executions conducted by the regime in less than two years; a staggering assembly line of death.

It would be a public service for those opposing the Iran nuclear deal and the policies of the regime and mullahs in Tehran to peruse the list of professors and send letters to the administrations of each of these universities – the vast majority of which are public and taxpayer funded – and ask why these academics are allowed bully pulpits to argue in favor of a regime that stifles free thinking and political discourse at home and brutally tortures students and teachers in Iran.

The sheer audacity of arguing for an accommodation of a regime that makes no accommodation for dissenters has helped persuade a majority of Americans that the mullahs cannot be trusted in spite of the efforts by NIAC, aided and abetted by groups such as J Street and MoveOn.org, to hold demonstrations that have generated small crowds.

The ultimate proof of the complete lack of authenticity within NIAC is the complete lack of honesty about the regime’s abuses.

By Michael Tomlinson

Well-Funded Iran Lobby Makes Trusting Regime Appealing

by

Well-Funded Iran Lobby Makes Trusting Regime Appealing

Well-Funded Iran Lobby Makes Trusting Regime Appealing

The central conceit of the proposed nuclear weapons deal with the Iran regime is a simple one: Iran’s mullahs can be trusted to act moderately and peacefully. It’s an idea that is hopeful, optimistic and enticing. It’s an idea propagated by the extensive lobbying and PR machine built up to support the mullahs in Tehran. It is an idea designed to reassure nervous Americans and provide political cover for wavering congressional lawmakers.

It is an idea fatally flawed.

The concept of trust is defined as a “firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance.” In order for trust to work, it assumes that the party in question – in this case the religious theocracy ruling Iran – has either demonstrated an ability to be trusted or expressed a desire to be trusted and then lives up to it.

In the case of the mullahs, nothing could be further from the truth. In their every action, the Iran regime has demonstrated again and again that it cannot be a reliable partner in any international agreement.

On the nuclear issue alone, Iran regime signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty yet violated the terms of the treaty by engaging in nuclear weapons development prior to 2003 and through 2012, leading to the stockpiling of 20 percent enriched uranium and the development of related weapons programs such as warhead detonation and missile delivery design. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found Iran in non-compliance repeatedly over the past decade.

Putting the nuclear issue aside for a moment, Iran also signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, but moved forward in supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons on his own people. Interestingly enough, while the regime’s top mullah Ali Khamenei has issued a much-ballyhooed “fatwa” or religious edict proscribing the use of nuclear weapons, he did not rule out the development of those weapons, nor did he mention chemical or biological weapons.

For the Iran regime language and its nuances is vital to its aims which is why the proposed nuclear agreement is a paltry 159 pages and does even include two secret side deals with the IAEA. The SALT and START treaties between the U.S. and Soviet Union dwarf it with detailed provisions and requirements.

This explains why the regime has strenuously held out for a finite time limit in any further sanctions or limits on its nuclear development; the mullahs have the patience of Job and are content to outwait the rest of the world. The fact that the proposed deal has no further limitations after 10 years means Iranian regime is free to scale up to industrial capacity in enriching uranium. The fact that its centrifuges will not be destroyed – only unplugged and stored – allowing Iranian regime to keep its refining infrastructure intact.

All we have done is kick the can down the road for a decade and allow another administration and Congress to deal with the mess.

Oddly enough, those elected officials supporting the deal have basically placed their faith and re-election hopes in the hands of the mullahs. There can be no other interpretation of their support. They are betting on the mullahs which seems an inane act unless you consider the lobbying force the mullahs have deployed.

Michael Rubin in a piece for Commentary delves deeply into the financial support for the Iran lobby; looking specifically at the Ploughshares Fund which spreads its millions of dollars around to a number of regime supporters, including the National Iranian American Council. He also connects the dots of how many staffers and activists supporting the regime are funneled through groups and entities with close ties to the regime.

“Those staffing NIAC, for example, have always sought an end to sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many had worked for Atieh Bahar, a Tehran-based consultancy close to former Iranian regime President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. They are not chameleons, changing their stripes to match their funders,” Rubin said.

“When NIAC policy director Reza Marashi, an Atieh Bahar alum, worked for the State Department during the George W. Bush years, he was not pro-democracy agenda, but was understood to be sympathetic to an embrace rather than isolation of Iran. Indeed, his persistent questions about the recipients of U.S. aid inside Iran raised security concerns,” he said. “Likewise, when NIAC received a couple hundred thousand dollars from the National Endowment for Democracy, Trita channeled it to organizations close to the Iranian government.”

Rubin lists the extensive donations made by Ploughshares to benefit regime supporters, including:

  • $210,000 to the Arms Control Association for “influencing…US policy toward Iran.”
  • $80,000 to the Atlantic Council to support the Iran Task Force and another $130,000 for the South Asian Program;
  • Funded the Center for New American Security to give “boot camps” to Congressional staffers “on the nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” in other words, to lobby them;
  • Underwrote the Friends Committee on National Legislation’s efforts “to support an integrated lobbying strategy to build support for pragmatic approaches to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue;”
  • $100,000 to J Street to “educate” on behalf of an Iran deal;
  • $150,000 to the National Iranian American Council for its advocacy on behalf of the Iran deal, not including money given individually to its staff;
  • $75,000 to National Security Network to “educate media and policymakers about policy options to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon;”
  • Blogger Jeffrey Lewis criticized and downplayed the Associated Press’ revelation about a side deal between Iran and the IAEA gutting verification by allowing Iran to test itself, but did not acknowledge a $75,000 gift to his home institution from Ploughshares;
  • The Aspen Institute also received Ploughshares money to educate Congressmen and senior staffers about Iran policy options, again, effectively to lobby them; and
  • $75,000 to Gulf-2000, a listserv run by former Carter Iran hand and “October Surprise” conspiracy theorist Gary Sick, who has used Gulf-2000 to become a “Journolist”-style clearing house to feed pro-Iran talking points to journalists.

All of these groups work in aligning the interests of the mullahs and in pressing for a deal that releases them of any obligations to change their behavior while setting the stage for turmoil down the road.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Stuck in Absurd Parchin “Truther” Role

by

Iran Lobby Stuck in Absurd Parchin “Truther” Role

Iran Lobby Stuck in Absurd Parchin “Truther” Role

A funny thing happened this weekend. The Associated Press reported last week the contents of a secret side deal between the Iran regime and the International Atomic Energy Agency over the issue of Iran finally allowing inspection of its Parchin military facility, long suspected of being used in research in its nuclear weapons program.

That story and side agreement set off a social media firestorm as regime supporters such as the National Iranian American Council, Ploughshares Fund and J-Street went all-in denouncing not only the story, but the very existence of the purported side deal agreement.

Tom Nichols wrote in the Daily Beast a compelling blow-by-blow review of what the mudslinging that went on as supporters of the mullahs in Tehran pulled out every tactic they could think of to contain the damage wrought by the AP story in which Iran was seemingly granted significant concessions in self-inspecting and reporting soil samples from the Parchin site without international oversight.

Nichols compared the attacks and arguments of the Parchin truthers to the much-mocked 9-11 truthers who spun up elaborate fantasy theories about the 9-11 attacks being organized by the U.S. government and Israel. Nichols wrote:

The Huffington Post made the strongest play by noting that former IAEA official Tariq Rauf said that in his view it was “not an authentic document” and represented an attempt to “hinder” the Iran Deal. Because the AP’s draft referred to Iran as the “Islamic State of Iran” – its official name is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also appears in the draft – some seized on this as evidence of involvement of…well, You Know Who: “The only one who refers to Iran,” Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council tweeted, “as ‘Islamic State of Iran’ is [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu. And strangely, AP’s dubious ‘draft’ of the IAEA-Iran agreement…”

AP writer Matt Lee upbraided Parsi, saying: “You know better than this.” Parsi, in classic truther fashion, replied: “I am pointing out the language similarity and calling it strange. That’s it.” Max Fisher of Vox, for his part, called the AP story “troubling” and backed off when Lee also directly challenged him to take a position on the forgery charge. Lewis eventually said he thought “Islamic State” was transcription error, but he spent the rest of the day in a snarky pissing match with Lee and the AP on Twitter.

Nichols also noted how all of the charges about the forged IAEA side agreement hit Internet and social media all at the same time on Friday morning, calling the timing more than coincidental. Most interestingly though was the fact Nichols noted the new tactical change in the Iran lobby’s attacks, especially on journalists who published an unfavorable piece on the Iran regime or deal.

“The Iran Deal supporters knew there was no point in trying to rebut the substance of the claim: the story was out, people had already read it, and politicians had already reacted. A careful analysis of whether the document said what the AP headline said it did would take too long, and most people wouldn’t bother with it,” Nichols said. “Instead, the story had to be discredited and flushed, as soon as possible. There wasn’t time to explain that ‘monitor’ might mean different things to a lay reader and to an expert. Better simply to throw an array of charges at the Associated Press and its reporters and see what sticks.”

“The warning shot to other journalists is clear, however. Reporters with one of the most reputable news organizations in the world had to fight off odious charges for doing their job. This is apparently the price to be paid for reporting anything that challenges support for a deal that has reached, among its adherents, the status of a dogma that tolerates no heresy,” he added.

But these attacks by the Iran lobby point out the most significant issue surrounding these secret side deals; the fact that they are still secret.

William Tobey and Judith Miller writing in Real Clear Politics took the Obama administration to task in keeping these deals secret and outlined three compelling reasons why they should be made public:

“First, Iran’s commercial and industrial secrets—or even military secrets—are unlikely to be revealed by publishing the IAEA’s side agreements. Confidentiality regarding safeguards mainly covers proprietary and economic information, not approaches, said Olli Heinonen, the IAEA’s former chief inspector.

“Second, while such side deals are normally secret, the Iran agreement is far from a normal case. Both the IAEA Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council concluded that Tehran violated its earlier Safeguards obligations on numerous occasions over an extended period of time. Moreover, Iran, under its earlier commitments, was supposed to let the IAEA visit Parchin with 24 hours’ notice. Yet the agency has been waiting years for access, while Iran has conducted a massive cleanup at the location.

“Third, the overarching deal removing sanctions on Iran was struck by seven nations and the European Union—not just by Iran and the IAEA.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby, in his regular press briefing on Monday, did not build confidence either when he said the government believes the IAEA will give it all the “access and information” it needs in regards to inspections at Parchin.

Pete Kasperowicz of the Washington Examiner explained how Kirby’s subtle addition of the phrase “access and information” reinforced the perception that the IAEA side deals surrendered control of the testing and inspection process to the Iran regime.

New York Times correspondents David R. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon took a deeper dive in the future risks posed by the Iran deal and concluded “that after 15 years, Iran would be allowed to produce reactor-grade fuel on an industrial scale using far more advanced centrifuges. That may mean that the warning time if Iran decided to race for a bomb would shrink to weeks, according to a recent Brookings Institution analysis by Robert J. Einhorn, a former member of the American negotiating team.”

“Critics say that by that time, Iran’s economy would be stronger, as would its ability to withstand economic sanctions, and its nuclear installations probably would be better protected by air defense systems, which Iran is expected to buy from Russia,” they added.

All of which points out that the real truth behind the Iran lobby’s arguments is that the mullahs in Tehran cannot be trusted.

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Regime Unveils New Missile; Iran Lobby Goes Nuts over Parchin

by

Iran Regime Unveils New Missile; Iran Lobby Goes Nuts over Parchin

In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency on Saturday, Aug. 22, 2015, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, left, listens to Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan after unveiling the surface-to-surface Fateh-313, or Conqueror, missile in a ceremony marking Defense Industry Day, Iran. Iran unveiled a short-range solid fuel ballistic missile Saturday, an upgraded version that the government says can more accurately pinpoint targets. (Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

The Iran regime unveiled a new short-range, solid fuel ballistic missile over the weekend that promises quicker launch capability, longer lifespan and accurate striking capability within its 310 mile range.

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the proposed agreement with the regime on its nuclear weapons program, called on the regime not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

It also contained an arms embargo against Iran for the next eight years, but since it is not part of the deal, the regime has said it won’t abide by with it.

“We will buy weapons from anywhere we deem necessary. We won’t wait for anybody’s permission or approval and won’t look at any resolution. And we will sell weapons to anywhere we deem necessary,” Hassan Rouhani, regime president, said in comments broadcast live on state television Saturday.

“Can we be indifferent…when there are special circumstances on our eastern, western, northern and southern borders,” Rouhani said, apparently referring to fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the region. “How can a weak country unable to stand up to the military power of neighbors, rivals and enemies achieve peace?”

Of course Rouhani neglects to mention that Iran itself is responsible for the fighting going on around it with its support of the Syrian regime, Shiite militias in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen, all of which have drawn in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt into a much broader series of wars all started by Iran.

But the fact that Iran unveiled this new ballistic missile and ignored the UN resolution and recently completed the sale of S-300 advance anti-aircraft missile systems from the Russians, as well as violated travel sanctions in sending Quds Force commander Ghasem Soleimani on a secret mission to Moscow to shop for more arms, gives the world a rock-solid view of what the regime’s true intentions are; which is to rearm, reload and stock up on weapons as quickly as possible.

These actions, although deeply disturbing, are not what has the Iran lobby up in arms, which is the disclosure by the Associated Press and verified by Fox News of the contents of a secret side deal between the Iran regime and the International Atomic Energy Agency which purports to allow Iran to use its own inspectors at the contested Parchin military site to collect soil samples for testing without international monitors on site.

The agreement is startling and contemptuous of all of the previous “red lines” proposed by the P5+1 group of nations that negotiated with Iran and an example of the dramatic concessions granted to the regime in an attempt to appease the mullahs. The fact that the mullahs aren’t content with these windfalls and chose to unveil a new missile during the contentious debate over the deal in Congress gives us a strong idea of just what they think of the deal.

Which is why the Iran lobby is almost apoplectic about the disclosures since it represents a damning confirmation of how bad the deal is and how the mullahs have duped the Obama administration.

Joel B. Pollak writing in Breitbart discusses how these “Parchin truthers” have concocted some pretty ridiculous claims to try and hide the obvious in these Parchin disclosures.

The “Parchin truthers” include Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a group often described as a pro-regime lobby. Parsi retweeted an accusation that the AP text may have been “personally forged by Benjamin Netanyahu,” and added his own comment,” Pollak said.

Tyler Cullis, also of the NIAC, went so far as to tweet that use of the phrase “Islamic State of Iran” had to be evidence of Netanyahu forging the statement since he’s the only one what uses that phrase. With all due respect to Cullis’ ham-handed efforts, there are plenty of us who refer to Iran as the “Islamic state”though they are really not Islamic and

The exposure of the Parchin lies of the Iran lobby have pushed the NIAC, Ploughshares Fund, J-Street and other regime supporters to attack not only the article itself, written by AP Vienna bureau chief George Jahn, but the global news organization itself in a desperate bid to deflect attention from the crippling revelations.

Joseph Cirincione, head of Ploughshares Fund which provides substantial funding for the NIAC and other Iran lobbying groups, took to the Los Angeles Times to trot out the well-worn and discredited idea that rejecting the proposed deal would inevitably lead to war.

He argues that U.S. partners would abandon the U.S. should the deal be rejected and the sanctions in place would fall apart as well. It is clear that what Cirincione is warning about has already happened because of the deal, not because of its defeat.

The mullahs are ignoring the arms embargo, acquiring weapons. They are hosting trade delegations from European nations and buying arms from the Russians, while lining up deals to sell oil to the Chinese in spite of the promise to keep sanctions in place unless and until Iranian regime demonstrates it has abided by the terms of the agreement to dismantle its nuclear program.

All of which proves how feckless the claims being made by Parsi, Cirincione and other regime sympathizers are and why the ballistic missiles Iran unveiled are only the start of a much more dangerous period in the Middle East and the world.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Use of False Dissidents by Iran Lobby

by

Throughout history the use of deception has been an integral part of statecraft. Governments have used double agents, false document releases, propaganda and all sorts of other tricks to deceive enemies or even their own people. Names such as Kim Philby, Eddie Chapman, Ashraf Marwan and even Mata Hari have claimed a special place in history for their duplicitous roles during wartime.

But in the social media age, knowing what is and isn’t true can prove difficult to near impossible with the flood of blogs, columnists and self-styled journalists posting, tweeting, sharing, pinning and linking. Edward Snowden showed us a peek under the tent with what was possible in terms of monitoring electronic communications. The Iran regime has refined the art with its own version of China’s great cyber wall which shuts out the outside world from the Iranian people and allows the mullahs to monitor virtually all the electronic activity happening there.

Control of all communications also has a certain side effect as well, it gives rise to the one of the current tactics used by the regime in trying to project a more moderate image to the outside world. You see, if the Iran regime controls all forms of outbound and inbound communications, how can anyone really trust what is being said or more precisely what the mullahs are allowing to be said.

One of the regime’s favored tactics is to project the image of a divided Islamic state; a struggle between moderates and hardliners, especially as it relates to the current debate over approval of the proposed nuclear agreement. The regime’s official news agency, IRNA, and other news media churn out a steady stream of stories about “hardliners” within the regime clamoring to the kill the deal and how “moderates” such as Hassan Rouhani are struggling mightily for peace.

It all has the tinge of some bad B-movie thriller from the 1950s with a cartoonish lampooning of favored tropes, no different than Cold War-era imagery of spies going to battle between the West and Soviet Bloc.

But these “protests” are largely staged for the benefit of Western media consumption in order to help the regime’s lobbyists here in the U.S. such as the National Iranian American Council in its efforts to bolster the image, such as one reported this weekend involving 50 “hardline “students.”

These same efforts to dissemble include public statements of endorsement being made by so-called “dissident” Iranians who are in fact still connected to the regime, not unlike the double agents of past campaigns. A recent open letter in Huffington Post was signed by former members of the Islamic Parliament who claimed to support the nuclear agreement, but scrutiny of the signers would reveal for each a past not spent on changing Iran’s policies, as much as securing a political future for their return to power.

In a historical context, many of these same ex-regime officials willingly took part in brutal repressive acts of their own until they fell out of favor for various and assorted reasons be it voting for laws oppressing the Iranian people or giving their support for the mullahs’ policies. The definition of their actions would be more commonly known as “appeasers” which carries historical connotations itself with visions of Neville Chamberlain clutching a piece of paper with Adolf Hitler’s signature on it proclaiming “peace in our time.”

But there is a certain delicious irony with all of the huffing and puffing of the regime and its loyal allies such as the NIAC and that is the almost insignificant impact it’s having on the Iranian American community itself.

The NIAC has led the public charge to mobilize Iranian Americans to support the deal, calling on mass protests and rallies and participation at congressional town hall meetings during the summer recess. Instead their appeals have fallen on largely deaf ears.

Protests held in favor of the deal have resulted in crowds just as small as the staged regime protests in Tehran with Los Angeles – home to over 800,000 Iranian Americans – protests yielding a paltry 200 participants, most not even of Iranian descent. Weekend rallies in Washington, DC and San Diego were even smaller, barely cracking 100 people.

In contrast, over 10,000 rallied in New York’s Times Square against the deal and another 1,000 gathered in Los Angeles, most of them Iranian Americans demonstrating not only their opposition to the regime, but also for the various resistance movements around the world.

The efforts by NIAC Action, the direct lobbying arm of NIAC, had even worse results with no-shows in at least one California district and another one in New York being outnumbered by opponents to the deal.

All of which raises an interesting question: Knowing how weak the regime and its lobby are, just why is anyone even listening to them?

By Michael Tomlinson

The Use of False Dissidents by Iran Lobby

The Use of False Dissidents by Iran Lobby

The Iran Lobby’s Guide to Distorting the Truth

by

The Iran Lobby’s Guide to Distorting the Truth

The Iran Lobby’s Guide to Distorting the Truth

The Iran regime’s leading lobby, the National Iranian American Council, launched an official lobbying arm in the form of NIAC Action since it was coming under greater scrutiny for engaging in lobbying activities in violation of federal law. Also, Trita Parsi, the head of the NIAC, recently lost a defamation lawsuit he brought against an Iranian American journalist who wrote on the same topic.

NIAC Action was launched ostensibly to help advocate for Iranian American issues, but anyone looking at its site will quickly realize its sole purpose for existence is to push for the proposed nuclear deal and enable the mullahs in Tehran to get their hands on $100 billion in frozen assets and relief from economic sanctions that had threatened their hold over the Iranian people.

Interestingly enough, NIAC Action provides its followers a tool kit to help them at local town hall meetings being held by members of Congress over the summer recess who will hear from their constituents about their feelings on the nuclear deal. The tool kit is classic tactical programming to help feed and stoke the narrative the Iran lobby has been pushing from day one; namely that the deal is a choice between war and peace.

NIAC Action has taken that absurd one step further by trying to align a vote on the nuclear deal to the vote on going to war in Iraq. One of their talking points to supporters reads:

“The President has said that Congress’ vote on the Iran deal is the most important foreign policy vote lawmakers will take since the vote to authorize the war with Iraq. Many lawmakers have come to regret that they did not stand up to vote against the war with Iraq. Will you stand up and vote in support of the nuclear deal to prevent a war with Iran?”

The message point is an excellent example of the desperation regime supporters must feel and their willingness to troll the depths of fear mongering to get their point across. In many ways, the NIAC Action talking points are revealing for what they don’t say.

They make no mention of the need to carefully watch the behavior of Iran’s mullahs going forward. They make no mention of the need to reassure Americans that the mullahs can be trusted. They make no mention of how the mullahs will use the $100 billion windfall they are about to receive. They make no mention of the mullahs’ commitment to improve human rights and release Iranian American hostages being held in Iranian prisons.

Why? Simply put, they know it would be lying.

So absent the ability to tell the truth in order to reassure highly skeptical Americans as evidenced by a string of recent public opinion polls, NIAC Action has chosen to double down on fear tactics in an effort to cow the American people. It’s a tactic being shared in recent comments by Secretary of State John Kerry who warned that the value of America’s currency would take a hit on the global market should the deal fail to pass.

He warned of the potential for “the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world, which is already bubbling out there.”

If we give them another week, I’m sure the administration and Trita Parsi will also tell us global warming will increase and polar bears will become extinct if the nuclear deal is not approved.

The histrionics coming from NIAC Action are the strongest indication yet of how weak its position is and how blatant a tool for the mullahs it has become.

Rest assured the inventive and fanciful minds at the NIAC will probably include the eventual downfall of Western civilization as a result of a failed nuclear deal next.

By Michael Tomlinson

Myths from Iran Lobby about Support for Nuclear Deal

by

Myths from Iran Lobby about Support for Nuclear Deal

Myths from Iran Lobby about Support for Nuclear Deal

According to Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council and chief cheerleader and lobbyist for the Iran regime, in an editorial on Huffington Post proposed that an overwhelming majority of Iranian Americans support the proposed nuclear agreement with the mullahs in Tehran.

Is there a scientific, statistically valid poll he cites as evidence? No. Is there some comprehensive survey or focus group sampling he discusses? No. Does he quote any academic, independent think tank, researcher or university for his assertion? No. Does he name any study, poll, survey or report supporting his claim? No.

All we have to go with is Parsi’s words and imagination, but that is not unusual and par for the course for this man who claims the mantle of Iranian American leadership, but does nothing by shill for the Iranian government.

Parsi has made no efforts to bridge the divides within the Iranian American community, routinely denouncing opponents and dissidents to the regime and praising the mullahs even when they commit gross violations of human rights perpetrated against Iranian Americans such as Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian and Amir Hekmati who all languish in Iranian prisons.

Parsi’s extensive social media postings on Twitter for example hardly mention the plight of these Iranian American men and he has never directed a single tweet at official Twitter accounts for high-ranking regime officials such as Hassan Rouhani or Ali Khamenei asking for mercy on behalf of these men unjustly imprisoned and tortured.

But that is the heart of Parsi’s lobbying tactics; to claim leadership and yet do nothing on behalf of the very people you claim to represent. Oddly enough, NIAC has spent almost all of its public pronouncements on issues directly related to the Iran regime and its citizens (to the extent it benefits the government’s policies) and nothing to the plight of Iranian Americans.

For example, Parsi has lobbied on behalf of Iranian students studying here from Iran who are subject to greater scrutiny when they study fields related to nuclear weapons development, but does not address broad social topics afflicting and dividing the Iranian American community such as addressing the generational gap in ex-pats who fled Iran during the Islamic revolution and younger Iranian Americans struggling to come to terms with the bloody legacy of their nation’s heritage.

Heck, he might help the cause of Iranian Americans and their image by even devoting himself to trying to correct stereotypes arising from the “Shahs of Sunset” reality show, but then again that doesn’t help further the cause of the mullahs does it?

It’s also unfortunate that Parsi in his editorial has to fall back on using the old “silent majority” phrase to justify his position. He probably forgot that the term originated with President Richard Nixon who coined the phrase in a televised address to talk about those Americans who did not join mass protests against the Vietnam War in 1969. An oversight, but all-too appropriate one for a guy who seems to have a penchant for dissembling the truth to suit his political needs.

Who knew Parsi was such as Nixon fan?

But more importantly, the central premise of Parsi’s piece – that popular support for the nuclear deal is growing – has been thoroughly blown out of the water with the release of several national and reputable polls which show steep and increasing declines in support for the deal, trust in the Iran regime to comply with the deal, lack of belief the U.S. got what it wanted, strong belief the U.S. gave away too much to the mullahs, and strong sentiment Iran is going to cheat anyway.

Those polls have come from places such as the Pew Research Center, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, WSJ, NBC, CNN, Washington Post etc.

As much as Parsi would have everyone believe him on his word, he has yet to offer up any proof of his assertions.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobbies Falsififying of Choices on Iran Deal as War or Peace

by

Containment Is the Third Choice In Dealing With Iran Regime

Containment Is the Third Choice In Dealing With Iran Regime

Yesterday we examined the histrionics of Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council and lobbyist-in-chief for the Iran regime’s policies, including his principle argument that the only two choices facing us when it comes to Iran is peace through a nuclear deal or war through attacking Iran.

While Parsi harps on semantics of discussions being the basis of a change in Iran’s approach to the world, the track record of the mullahs hardly merits that. In fact, it’s worthwhile remembering why sanctions were imposed in the first place:

  • In 1995, President Clinton imposes an executive order banning all trade with Iran in response to the conduct of regime leader Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the bloody Iran-Iraq war. Congress soon follows with the Iran=Libya Sanctions Act denying Iran access to loans and financial assistance for its oil industry;
  • In 2005, Iran begins enriching uranium in violation of international agreements with the UN Security Council. This starts a string of sanctions from the UN and U.S. under President George W. Bush freezing assets of those regime individuals connected to the nuclear program;
  • In 2010, Congress passes and President Obama signs into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act which greatly enhanced sanctions on the regime in response to brutal crackdowns of protests over fixed elections;
  • In 2012, the European Union imposes a ban on sales of Iranian oil and blocks to financial markets and transactions in response to the growth of the regime’s nuclear program.

These sanctions did not come out of the blue or on a whim. They came as a direct response to provocative regime behavior and actions. Iran’s mullahs were the ones that brought these responses onto themselves and contrary to what Parsi would have people believe those sanctions were self-inflicted by Iran.

Nowhere is that more evident than in how Iran sought to keep its nuclear program secret and only with Iranian dissident and resistance groups and the work of International Agencies were many of Iran’s secret nuclear sites revealed, including:

  • Arak: Site of a heavy water production plant, nuclear reactor and high-explosive test chamber uncovered by the People’s Mujahedin of Iran resistance group;
  • Ardakan: First reported in 2003 by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, this site was an acknowledged uranium mill capable of producing 50 metric tons of uranium annually;
  • Fordow: Secret facility uncovered by intelligence agencies in 2009 containing 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium;
  • Natanz: Hardened fuel enrichment plant built deep underground and reinforced with barriers to withstand direct bombing and home to 7,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, revealed in 2002 by Alireza Jafarzadeh, noted author and dissident figure now working with the National Council of Resistance of Iran;
  • Parchin: Revealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency as having been used for implosion testing necessary for modeling nuclear warhead detonation.

Again, Parsi never explains why Iran has maintained secret nuclear facilities. He has never explained why Iran needs to test implosion devices and highly enriched processing facilities for medical isotopes. Parsi has never explained why each U.S., UN and EU sanction was placed in direct response to a regime action.

The facts are that containment of the Iran regime had been working. The regime was cut off from financing and was bleeding mountains of cash because of its expenditure of arms and men in supporting religious wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

Discontentment ran deep within the Iranian people who rose up in protests over presidential elections in 2009 and most recently in mass demonstrations by teachers, ethnic minorities and young people over a plummeting economy and harsh human rights repression.

The time was ripe for regime change and under the pressure an effective containment strategy brought to bear on the mullahs, real change was within the grasp of the P5+1 group of nations and they let it slip away.

As Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said in response to the lost opportunity:

“Had the P5+1 been more decisive, the Iranian regime would have had no choice but to fully retreat from and permanently abandon its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Specifically, it would have been compelled to halt all uranium enrichment and completely shut down its bomb-making projects,” Mrs. Rajavi said.

But nothing better illustrates Parsi’s snarky view of the concerns over Iran’s brutal suppression of women, young people, Christians, Kurds and many others than this tweet he sent out:

“1/2 If America ends up getting delicious Iranian pistachios, and Iran ends up getting shitty McDonalds, then yes, US won #NoWinWin #IranDeal”

While Iranians languish in prison, Americans are held without trial, Iranian militia fight in three wars and millions of refugees are displaced by them, Parsi tweets about pistachios. It is ample proof of the fool he has become and the lackey he is.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Restocking of Iran Regime Bank Accounts and Weapons

by

The Restocking of Iran Regime Bank Accounts and WeaponsThe announcement of an agreement between the Iran regime and the P5+1 group of nations sets the stage for a protracted fight over the next 60 days in Congress where the deal must be approved and failing that, an override of a certain veto from President Obama has to occur in order to prevent the mullahs from cashing in on what looks to be one of the most generous paydays since Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in the year 410.

There will be an intensive amount of examination and dissection of the agreement’s provisions, but for today it’s worth looking at what some of the reaction has been and what it tells us about the real ambitions and aims of the Iranian regime.

“All Democrats, all Republicans should be looking at this deal very skeptically,” said Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz in an interview on Newsmax TV. “This should not break down into liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat. It should be all Americans concerned about the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in 10 years.”

“We have given Iran the path it has been seeking for almost 35 years. The other states in the region are not going to sit idly by, which is why in effect the nuclear arms race is already underway,” former U.N. Ambassador and Fox News contributor John Bolton said, adding that Iran and other nations have used civilian nuclear energy programs as cover for covert enrichment programs.

And from critics who know the intentions of the Iranian regime best came a strong statement from the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s leader, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi.

“There needs to be strict United Nations monitoring of the ‘cash poured into the regime’s pockets so that they would be spent on the Iranian people’s urgent needs,” said Iranian opposition leader Mrs. Rajavi. “Otherwise, Khamenei would continue to fund the IRGC (the Iranian regime’s Guards Corps) to export terrorism and fundamentalism to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.”

Ironically enough, Trita Parsi and Tyler Cullis of the National Iranian American Council, chief cheerleaders and lobbyists for Iran’s mullahs, offered an absurd argument in Foreign Policy describing a scenario where a lifting of the arms embargo against the regime would not alter the military balance in the region.

They cite the size of the military budget for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states versus what the Islamic republic spends, but their arguments are not only incorrect, but deliberately false since Iran has not publicly reported its military spending since 2012 and does not include the vast expenditures it makes in military exports for proxies such as Hezbollah, Houthis and Shiite militias fighting in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

They also ignore the centerpiece of Iranian military policy for the past five years which has been to rely heavily on paid mercenaries such as Afghan fighters, Shiite terror groups and paramilitaries to fight on behalf of the regime. In Syria’s case, Iran’s military dispatched 15,000 new fighters primarily made up of paid mercs alone.

When all of these other secret expenditures are taken into consideration, along with the size of the Iranian regime’s army, the mullahs’ firepower ranks 23rd in the world, exceeding the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia (ranked 28th), Mexico (31st), North Korea (36th), United Arab Emirates (50th) and Yemen (79th).

Which is why the arguments Parsi and Cullis posed strike at the heart of the needs of the Iranian regime; namely to get their hands on the $160 billion in frozen assets and foreign investment available to them, as well as the ability to sell two million barrels of oil on the open market each day again. The fact the Iran lobby has argued so passionately for lifting of the arms embargo shows the desperate need for the mullahs to restock their military hardware.

Over the next two months we will hear much debate over the specifics of the agreement, but what cannot be overlooked are the motivations of the mullahs in Tehran and the central flaw with this deal; which is it rests solely on the premise that the mullahs can be trusted.

It’s a deeply flawed premise given their actions over the past decade leading up to today which has never changed or deviated from the path of regional hegemony.

Congress would be well served to reject this deal because the choice is indeed between peace and war, unfortunately approving this deal will start a nuclear arms race, allow billions in new arms to flow to battlegrounds and spark a spiral into more wars.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

 

Why Congress Will Not Listen to the NIAC

by

The end of talks in Vienna

The end of talks in Vienna

The National Iranian American Council lobbies on behalf of the Iranian regime. That much has been well documented through financial records, emails, court judgements, interviews, public statements and investigative stories by journalists.  The NIAC has even formalized that lobbying in launching an official lobbying arm in the form of NIAC Action.

The question remains though, will anyone on Capitol Hill listen to them?

There are a plethora of reasons why very few Senators or Representatives and their staffers will listen to them, especially in the wake of the current agreement between the regime and the P5+1 group of nations that the Congress will begin a 60 day review period.

First and foremost, any lobby’s power on Capitol Hill is derived from a few simple levers of influence such as: financial muscle to make campaign contributions, grassroots muscle to deliver workers in the field to walk precincts or man phone banks or direct influence through relationships and knowledge.

There are abundant examples of this every day. The National Rifle Association has been effective in holding off gun control legislation because it has over four million members shelling out over $200 million to support largely conservative candidates in favor of its position, while the AFL-CIO labor unions boast over 11 million members and spent over $46 million in direct lobbying alone to influence largely liberal candidates.

Every industry and cause in America has a powerful lobby, as well as foreign governments, including ones like the Iranian regime, but federal law prohibits Iran from directly contributing to candidates or even speaking to them directly on legislation; hence the need to create the NIAC to carry the mullahs’ water.

NIAC has an annual budget of less than $2 million with expenses around $1 million, which puts its financial clout somewhere around spotted owl society. The NIAC has recently posted a job for a development director since its leader, Trita Parsi, has quickly deduced he needs more cash quickly in order to get on the radar screen of Congress.

Consequently, if its political action committee were to even make a donation to a candidate, it is reasonable to assume that candidate might decline such as gift since it would be inviting intense scrutiny and attack from anti-regime opponents who would be more than happy to point out the error of a candidate’s ways in taking money from a group directly associated with Tehran.

It would be akin to taking money from BP right after the Gulf oil spill or donations from Monsanto while you’re reviewing regulations on GMOs.

Then there is the question of NIAC’s grassroots muscle, which has proven to be spotty at best and non-existent otherwise. Several “Days of Action” legislative outreach days have yielded pitiful results with small numbers of petitions being delivered primarily to already supportive members’ offices. NIAC is staffed with only a small number of people who attempt to demonstrate their outsized significance largely through social media that speaks to their own sphere of supporters.

Even media coverage of NIAC has seen a steep decline where their comments have moved lower and lower in news stories and been largely relegated to cheerleading quotes for the Iranian regime, much like a parrot would copy a master’s remarks. Absent articles about ongoing nuclear talks and their media presence shrinks to the size of a thimble.

As for their influence with their expertise, even that has come under harsh criticism as news media disclosures about former staffers and interns for NIAC moving into critical policy making roles within the Obama administration while reviewing policy on current nuclear talks have forced legislative staff to keep them at arm’s length lest their bosses be tagged with the same accusations.

In fact, Tyler Cullis of NIAC recently sent an email blast to congressional offices arguing for the lifting of the United Nations embargo on conventional weapons trade with Iran in order to facilitate the agreement; particularly since this has become one of the loopholes of the agreement. Since everyone knows that if the world gives them unrestricted access to arms they can buy and export to their proxies waging war in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

The fact that Cullis is not even a staffer for the new lobbying arm, but engaging in direct lobbying of congressional staffers, caused many eyebrows to be raised, but the desperate gambit by NIAC was necessary because Iran was demanding the action at the 11th hour.

To give you an idea of how desperate NIAC staffers are to help the mullahs, Reza Marashi claimed on CBS This Morning that the deal was “too big to fail” and thus had to be approved.

The last time we had something given to the American people as too big to fail, it was our nation’s banks as they gorged on bad debt and collapsed sending the nation spiraling into recession.

This Iranian “too big to fail moment” might end up sending the rest of the world into a new nuclear arms race and prolonged sectarian wars for years to come at the hands of the mullahs.

All of which is why at the end of the day, it would be wise for Democrats and Republicans to just ignore the NIAC.

By Michael Tomlinson