Iran Lobby

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

The Iran Lobby’s Plan B

by

The Iran Lobby’s Plan B

The Iran Lobby’s Plan B

With the recent failure of the Senate to mount an override of a Democratic filibuster, and the implementation of the proposed nuclear agreement with the Iran regime on the way, it is ironic though that such significant foreign policy issue will be implemented without any bipartisan support and no majority support from the American people.

But regardless of the votes last week, it has become clear that the Iran lobby is gearing up to combat a plethora of “Plan B” options being formulated by opponents of the regime since the decision to submit the agreement not as a formal treaty, but rather an executive action leaves the agreement subject to revision or even reversal when a new president is elected in 2016.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who helped craft the bipartisan compromise legislation requiring the congressional vote on the deal, announced his intention to submit new legislation addressing many of the loopholes in the proposed nuclear agreement to which he has publicly announced his opposition.

Jim Lobe of Lobelog.com and Tyler Cullis of the National Iranian American Council both offered up their critiques in an attempt by regime supporters to fend off any new legislation threatening to derail their efforts.

What Lobe and Cullis describe as “poison pills” are actually the kinds of common-sense provisions that should have been included in the nuclear deal in the first place such as requirements that the president cannot lift certain sanctions imposed on regime banks for terrorism-related or ballistic-missile related reasons until the president certifies those banks have ended their facilitation of transactions aiding Iran’s support for terrorism and ballistic-missile development.

Ironically, these conditions were part of the original set of “red lines” drawn by U.S. negotiators at the outset of talks, including requirements for “anytime, anywhere” inspections, all of which were pulled off the table in the final agreement.

The fact that Cullis and Lobe argue so strenuously against these inclusion of these types of restrictions on the regime’s conduct speaks volumes about their commitment not to ensuring peace and stability in the Middle East, but allowing the Iran regime a free hand to conduct its terror operations and development of missile systems that can deliver nuclear warheads over vast distances.

As syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has correctly pointed out in an editorial published on FoxNews.com:

“Promises of stringent inspections are meaningless, especially when Iran has already said it will never allow outside access to its military sites. Ali Akbar Velayati, the Iranian security adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has stated firmly that, ‘Regardless of how the P5+1 countries interpret the nuclear agreement, their entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden. The entry of any foreigner, including IAEA inspectors or any other inspector, to the sensitive military sites of the Islamic Republic is forbidden, no matter what.’”

But aside from Cardin’s proposal, the Defund Iran coalition also announced an effort to ask voters in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Ohio to change their state constitutions to bar any state dollars from being invested in ways that might help the Iran regime, with plans to expand the effort to an additional 25 other states in the coming weeks.

“Every dollar we stop makes a difference to the solider who gets blown up by an IED financed by Iran,” said Sarah Steelman, a former Missouri state treasurer and current chairwoman of Defund Iran. “Not one penny of the people’s money should go to any company that does business that goes to Iran—or any other sponsor of terror.”

According to Philip Elliot writing for Time magazine, banning investments in funds or companies some find objectionable is hardly a new tactic as shown by the pressure built over two decades for Americans to withhold investments with ties to South Africa in order to protest that nation’s apartheid systemic discrimination. More recently, some groups have pressured Americans to do the same toward Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Thirty states already have some form of law or regulation that bans state dollars to go to Iran. The new moves would codify existing bans, but perhaps complicate some of them. States will have to decide how aggressively to write the constitutional language. Would they simply ban pensions from investing in energy companies that buy oil from Iran, or would they also ban economic development dollars from going to retailers who open outposts in Tehran? A defense contractor, for instance, could see its tax deals with a state threatened if it also sells parts to a company that does business with Iran, Elliott said.

That groundswell of popular support at the grassroots and state level is in no doubt motivated by the continuing worrisome stream of revelations and news coming out of the regime such as the release of a new book authored by Saeid Golker that took a scholarly look at the regime’s dreaded state-financed Basij militia.

Gareth Smyth of the Guardian’s Tehran bureau examined Golker’s work, writing that “Golkar’s central argument – reflected in the book’s title, Captive Society: The Basij Militia and Social Control in Iran – is that the Basij is more widespread and effective than generally realized.”

“There are 12,000 Starbucks in the US and 22,000 around the world,” Golker says, “but in Iran we have more than 50,000 Basij bases and offices.”

He estimates one in three students is a member, as are 65 percent of state employees, which clearly shows the expansive and pervasive presence of the militia throughout all levels of Iranian society in a model reminiscent of the much-feared East German Stasi intelligence service that turned family members into informers for the state against other family members.

And in another demonstration of the regime’s flouting of human rights, Amnesty International called on the regime to halt the impending “execution of Mahmoud Barati, a teacher who was convicted of drug-related offences following an unfair trial that is believed to have included a confession obtained through torture and other ill-treatment.”

“The Iranian authorities must end their unprecedented killing spree – more than 700 people have been executed so far this year, most of them convicted on drug-related charges,” said Amnesty International in a statement.

It is doubtful the regime will halt its executions, nor does it seem possible it plans to release any of the Iranian-Americans it is currently holding hostage.

By Michael Tomlinson

The Insidious Infiltration of American Government by Iran Lobby

by

Tritta Parsi paying respect to the Iranian regime delegation in Geneva

Trita Parsi paying respect to Iran delegation in Geneva Talks

Matthew RJ Brodsky, senior Middle East analyst at Wikistrat and former editor of inFOCUS Quarterly, took a deep dive in Huffington Post into the lobbying forces of the Iran regime and the progress it has made in infiltrating deep into American policy making positions under the Obama administration.

What piqued his interest and those who track the activities of the Iran lobby was the latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton’s email server in which the pro-regime group The Iran Project provided the administration with a 10-page plan that eventually served as the roadmap for engaging with the regime once again and led to the run up in negotiating the nuclear weapons agreement.

Brodsky includes the ground breaking investigative analysis done by Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson  Institute and senior editor of the Weekly Standard, who examined the ties Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, has with Iran regime insiders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Parsi founded the NIAC in 2002 and was described by Smith as being the “tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby,” in terms of funneling a large number of former staffers into key administration positions and gaining the ear of key members of the Obama administration.

Breitbart News discovered the hiring of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, a former NIAC staffer, as the National Security Director for Iran who sat in on several high level meetings with President Obama while discussing negotiations with the Iran regime on the nuclear deal.

The NIAC attempted to dismiss Nowrouzzadeh’s position as a mere intern, but a 2004 document uncovered by Breitbart News described her as a former “staff member” at NIAC.

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic referred to Parsi as someone who “does a lot of the leg-work for the Iranian regime.”

Parsi’s close ties to the regime came under greater scrutiny during the tense negotiations between the regime and P5+1 negotiators in which Parsi and his NIAC colleague Reza Marashi were often seen conferring with members of the Iranian delegation and often were quoted by news media covering the talks using the same talking points and keys messages as the official regime news agencies.

Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake wrote about Parsi’s close connection with regime foreign minister Javad Zarif uncovered in documents made public as part of a failed defamation lawsuit brought by Parsi against an Iranian American journalist who accused Parsi of working on behalf of the regime.

NIAC and Parsi have moved out of the legally shadowy world of indirect lobbying by forming an official lobbying arm called NIAC Action which made no bones about its open lobbying for positions favorable to the regime and began the solicitation of funds as it expected to make donations to political campaigns it deems supportive of the Iranian regime.

Brodsky in his Huffington Post column also examined the flow of funds to regime lobbying groups and traced how the Rockfeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 towards promoting a nuclear agreement with the regime, primarily through donations given to The Iran Project. That funding has been supplemented by additional contributions made through the Ploughshares Fund which has given substantial amounts of funding to the NIAC directly.

Ironically, the policy memos written by The Iran Project proved to be key elements of the Obama administration’s outreach to the Iran regime including a call to open a direct dialogue to top regime mullah Ali Khamenei by promising to not seek regime change as a means of reassuring the mullahs which came in the form of a personal letter from Obama early in his first term.

Paramount for the Iran lobby was not only securing a favorable nuclear deal for the regime, but more importantly unlinking any agreement from conditions related to the regime’s conduct in areas such as terrorism, human rights or military interventions through proxies and terror groups.

The de-linking of all these areas may very well turn out to be the biggest win for the Iran lobby.

By Michael Tomlinson

Dealing With the Iran Deal Hangover

by

 

Dealing With the Iran Deal Hangover

Dealing With the Iran Deal Hangover

Depending on who is keeping count, the Obama administration has either gotten the necessary number of commitments from Democratic Senators to overcome efforts to derail the proposed nuclear arms agreement with the Iran regime, or is on the verge of securing it, which raises the next inevitable question facing supporters of the deal: What’s next?

The regime’s expansive lobby and collection of supporters and apologists have shouted to the rooftops that this deal will auger in a new era of cooperation and moderation from the regime throughout the Middle East. It has been well-documented here already just how silly those statements have been, but the important issue for those politicians supporting the deal is the potential embarrassment they will pay should the mullahs end up not being moderate.

Stephen A. Seche, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen and executive vice president of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, D.C., writing in the Boston Globe examined the ramifications post-deal approval.

“The irony is that while Administration officials trumpet the nuclear deal as a triumph of soft power (diplomacy and reasoned negotiation) over hard power (military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities), Washington’s efforts to assure anxious Arab allies in the wake of the deal seem remarkably focused on reinforcing their capacity to engage Iran militarily,” he said.

“Listen to Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks following his Aug. 3 meetings with Gulf foreign ministers in Qatar. He sounded more like a senior Pentagon official than America’s chief diplomat: ‘We agreed to expedite certain arms sales . . . to engage in very specific training to upgrade military capacity in the region . . . to talk about how to integrate the region’s ballistic missile defense,’” Seche added.

The fact that the first thing the Obama administration did was go to Sunni Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia and promise extensive new shipments of weapons to offset the anticipated expansion of Iran’s military says much for what the future will hold.

Most interestingly, moments after the administration secured enough votes to approve the deal, a letter from Secretary of State John Kerry popped into congressional inboxes where he admitted “that, despite the deal, Iran will continue to back terrorist groups across the globe” and promises to boost military support and funding to Israel and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Important questions have been raised concerning the need to increase security assistance to our allies and partners in the region and to enhance our efforts to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” Kerry writes. “We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.”

One might think the administration is being magnanimous in victory, but in fact it now has to deal with the consequences of its action, namely prepare for the Iran regime to exert its perceived new freedoms to act aggressively against its neighbors without consequences. Since the agreement was narrowly defined to deal only with the nuclear issue with no linkages to reforms or changes in Iran’s policies or practices, the Obama administration has virtually no leverage left to deal with the extremist mullahs.

The Iran regime really has no intention of altering its behavior in light of the agreement as verified yet again by another violent display in Tehran, this time by members of the regime’s Bassij militia who burned American, British and Israeli flags outside of the former U.S. embassy.

According to Agence France-Presse accounts “some 30 people took part in trampling and burning the flags at a ceremony to unveil a plaque on the embassy’s fence of 100 derogative expressions to describe the United States. The phrases, all used by the Islamic republic’s late founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, included: ‘Great Satan’, ‘criminals’, ‘corrupt’, ‘arrogant’ and ‘anti-Koran’.”

It’s good to know the regime is bulking up on derogatory phrases for the U.S., but we should not expect anything less from a regime which has made it abundantly clear its distaste of the U.S. and contempt for any moderation or accommodation with its traditional enemy. In the mullahs eyes, the deal is not so much a new measure of cooperation, as much a fleecing of a stupid America.

As regime lobbyists such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council take a victory lap, it’s worth remembering how the burden now moves squarely onto the shoulders of representatives to the extent that every violent act, horrific violation of human rights or act of terror will be connected directly to their vote.

That is a particular long time to have a hangover.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Engages in More Extremists Actions

by

Iran Regime Engages in More Extremists Actions

Iran Regime Engages in More Extremists Actions

Who knew the American flag could be a “Satanic symbol” but in Tehran under the mullahs, it not only is, but along with the Union Jack, is a forbidden item for sale on T-shirts in the Islamic state as the religious theocracy cracks down on merchants looking to cash in on the perceived thawing in relations with the West.

“This morning we took these clothes off leading distributors,” said city police chief General Hossein Sajedinia as quoted by the ISNA news agency.

Sajedinia said reports about the activity had been received in the past two weeks, leading to surveillance and detentions and the closing of any stores selling such items.

So much for the “moderate” Iran government.

The disconnect between the perception being pushed by regime advocates such as the National Iranian American Council and apologists such as Ali Gharib and Paul Pillar of a cuddly and soft new Iranian government and the real on-the-ground truth of a brutal, harsh and unrelenting regime is stark and incontestable.

Since the July 14 agreement between the Iran regime and the P5+1 group of nations, the regime has done little to reassure the rest of the world that it has indeed changed. In fact, its actions since then have only reinforced critics of the regime who have long maintained that Iran’s mullahs have absolutely no intention of changing course.

The biggest concession the regime won from the rest of the world was not allowing it to keep the bulk of its nuclear infrastructure intact, nor was it the lifting of trade and financial embargoes allowing it to access $150 billion in frozen assets or sell four million barrels of oil on the open market or buy advanced military weapons systems again.

No, the biggest concession was uncoupling the actions of the regime from any future repercussions. In effect, the cutting of Iran’s conduct from any measurable yardstick of internationally accepted normative behavior from any consequences from future sanction or action has emboldened Iran’s mullahs to feel invigorated with their new-found freedom and they have left the starting gate running harder and faster than Triple Crown winner American Pharoah.

NPR correspondent Michele Kelemen focused on this disconnect in examining the Iran regime’s steadfast refusal to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency over the past decade over the military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Harvard University’s Olli Heinonin, a former top official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, says having full knowledge about the past will be crucial in the future — when Iran gets out from under the current limits on its nuclear program,” Kelemen said.

“You want to understand how far did they get,” said Heinonin. “Then you know what else they need to do to manufacture a nuclear weapon.”

Heinonin, speaking at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which has been critical of the Iran deal, said knowing about the past will also help inspectors know where they should concentrate their efforts now, according to Kelemen.

That defiance of in adhering to the proposed agreement was again reinforced by Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan who recently reaffirmed Iran’s position that issues involving Iran’s missile program are not matters for discussion. Presumably, Iran is determined to keep developing its missile force.

As for attempts to clarify Iran’s past activity regarding the “military dimensions” of its nuclear program, Dehghan noted that Iran will definitely not grant anyone access to its security and military “secrets.”

He was echoed by the head of the regime’s Revolutionary Guard who said the U.S. is still the “Great Satan,” regardless of the nuclear deal struck with the Americans and other world powers over the Islamic state’s contested nuclear program.

The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, reported by the official Guard website, said enmity against Iran by the U.S. hasn’t lessened.

“We should not be deceived by the U.S.,” Mr. Jafari reportedly said. “It wants to infiltrate into Iran, resorting to new instruments and method.”

But rhetoric alone is not the only tool the Iran regime is using as Kuwait yesterday charged 24 people suspected of links to Iran and the Hezbollah terror group with plotting attacks against the Gulf state according to a public prosecutor.

The men were charged with “spying for the Islamic republic of Iran and Hezbollah to carry out aggressive acts against the State of Kuwait” by smuggling in and assembling explosives, as well as possessing firearms and ammunition, the statement said.

They were also charged with “carrying out acts that would undermine the unity and territorial integrity” of Kuwait, and of possessing eavesdropping devices, it said.

The actions in Kuwait only serve to underscore the mistake by the P5+1 in giving Iran this major act of appeasement in the hopes of buying some short term security by forgoing any hope of containing the Iran regime in the future. It’s a Faustian bargain that Stephen Rademaker explained on PBS this weekend:

“Faust was this mythological figure who sold his soul for the — to the devil in exchange for magical powers for — I think it was 26 years,” he said.

“For 26 years, he had magical powers. At the end of 26 years, the devil came to claim his soul. And I think that is a pretty good analogy to what this deal provides. For 10 years, it’s not a bad deal. After 10 years, it becomes a horrible deal and it gives Iran regime everything they have always wanted. After — President Obama concedes, after 13 years, the breakout time is almost zero,” he added.

Rademaker was an assistant secretary of state for the Bureaus of Arms Control and International Security and Nonproliferation under President George W. Bush. He’s now a principal at the Podesta Group in Washington and an adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

All of which demonstrates as clear as daylight that the Iran regime is fully committed to its extremist course of action and the proposed deal, far from hindering it, actually enables it.

All of which demonstrates as clear as daylight that the Iran regime is fully committed to its extremist course of action and the proposed deal, far from hindering it, actually enables it.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Cheating Already Undermines Nuclear Deal

by

Iran Regime Cheating Already Undermines Nuclear Deal

Iran Regime Cheating Already Undermines Nuclear Deal

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, released a new report showing that the Iran regime was engaged in new construction activities at its Parchin military facility which has been at the center of the growing controversy about Iran retaining the ability to self-inspect suspected nuclear facilities.

The document states the IAEA “has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment and probable construction materials” at Parchin.

“In addition,” the report continues, “a small extension to an existing building appears to have been constructed.”

But the IAEA report comes amid renewed scrutiny with regard to the Parchin site after it was revealed that Iranian inspectors would be taking an active role in IAEA-monitored inspections there.

“Allowing the Iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites, particularly a notorious military site, is like allowing the inmates to run the jail,” Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham said of the arrangement in an interview with CNN.

The move to begin construction activities at a key military site the Iran regime has continually denied access to for inspectors is another clear sign of the regime’s efforts to cover up aspects of its nuclear program in advance of the deal being closed. The fact that the IAEA does not even know what exactly the regime is doing at Parchin demonstrates how ineffectual it will be in policing the regime’s compliance with the agreement.

And in another move demonstrating the regime’s commitment to military superiority in the region, regime presidential puppet Hassan Rouhani again took to state-run television to declare Iran’s military capability would not be affected by the nuclear deal and the regime “did not and will not accept any limitations.”

With the Iran regime already cheating at Parchin and reiterating its commitment to military expansion, it comes as no surprise the regime is beefing up its direct lobbying efforts through campaign contributions from pro-regime groups with ties to the Iranian government to at least ten Congressional members as reported in FrontPage Magazine by Daniel Greenfield.

Legislators who took contributions from the Iranian American Political Action Committee and have already announced their support for the nuclear deal included:

  • Edward Markey (D-MA)
  • Alan Franken (D-MN)
  • Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
  • Michael Honda (D-CA)
  • André Carson (D-IN)
  • Gerald Connolly (D-VA)
  • Donna Edwards (D-MD)
  • Jackie Speier (D-CA)

Iranian dissident Hassan Daioleslam, who won a defamation lawsuit brought by Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, a leading pro-regime lobbying group, detailed the origins of IAPAC in 2007 according to Spryridon Mitsotakis in Breitbart:

“During the eight years of Rafsanjani’s presidency, which ended in 1997, the Iranian regime had attempted without success to attract the Iranian Diaspora to its cause. Khatami’s presidency recharged Tehran’s efforts. With the Supreme Leader’s direct involvement, the High Council for Iranian Compatriots Overseas was created in 2000 under the auspices of the Foreign Ministry. The President heads the Council, and the Foreign Minister serves as its deputy director. The Ministry of Intelligence and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance collaborate to implement the decisions of the council. The objective was to create a network of organizations to infiltrate and seemingly represent the Iranian community abroad, and promote policies favorable to the Iranian government. Tehran anticipated that this strategy would neutralize opposition activities abroad and legitimize the new lobby.”

He goes on to detail Parsi’s close work with Iran regime officials in launching the Iran lobby in the U.S. modeled closely on Jewish lobbying groups and made to have the appearance of a citizen’s lobby and impede the work of Iranian dissident and opposition groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The NIAC, IAPAC and a host of other regime front groups have worked hard to reshape and distort the truth about the mullahs’ true intentions which have come to light with this new IAEA report on Parchin. The sheer brazenness of openly working to alter the Parchin site shows the contempt and lack of fear the mullahs have in snookering the rest of the world.

By Michael Tomlinson

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

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