NIAC

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is widely accused of functioning as a de facto lobby for the Iranian regime under the guise of representing Iranian-American interests. In fact, NIAC is recognized as a lobbying organization by the Iranian Islamic fascist regime. NIAC consistently aligns with Tehran’s positions, opposes democratic oversight (such as congressional review of Iran deals), and has deep connections with regime figures like Javad Zarif. Legal findings, leaked communications, and public campaigns like #NIACLobbies4Mullahs further alerted to NIAC’s covert advocacy for Iran’s theocratic leadership, undermining its credibility as an independent, pro-democracy organization in the U.S.


The NIAC is widely seen of functioning as a de facto lobby for the Iranian regime under the guise of representing Iranian-American interests. It gas been pointed out its deep connections with regime figures like Javad Zarif. Legal findings, leaked communications,.


Trita Parsi is sonetimes cited by the MSM, without mentioning his lobbying.


It has repeatedly shown itself to be less a voice for Iranian-Americans and more a mouthpiece for the radical Iranian regime. Despite branding itself as a non-profit advocacy group, NIAC has consistently pushed Tehran’s agenda in Washington—opposing congressional oversight, shielding the regime’s nuclear ambitions, and aligning with known operatives of the Islamic Republic. Legal rulings and exposed communications confirm its troubling ties to top Iranian officials. In the eyes of many national security experts and lawmakers, NIAC operates as an unregistered foreign agent, undermining U.S. interests and aiding a jihadi terror-sponsoring regime.


See also

Notes

Senate VotesIt is a curious thing. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) claims to advocate on behalf of the Iranian American interests, but virtually all of its public and media outreach efforts are devoted towards supporting whatever happens to be the line of the day for the Mullah’s regime in Iran.

Okay, maybe something is changed about its mission statement and hasn’t made it to the “About Us” section of their website. We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt about their aims, but what still remains puzzling is the NIAC’s almost pathological aversion to democracy.

In the run up to the March 24th deadline for a framework agreement between the Iranian regime and the P5+1 group of nations – a too-early deadline accidentally foisted by NIAC and the Iranian lobby’s own actions – the NIAC has steadily maintained that any agreement not be subject to review and vote by Congress.

It is a curious position to take on several levels. First and foremost, the NIAC might have trouble letting go of the Iranian model of government which tends to default to the autocratic side where Iran’s Supreme Leader, in this case top mullah Ali Khamenei, has sole authority over foreign policy and military matters, including any treaty or international agreement.


Overview.

NIAC has identified itself as a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization but has faced controversy in the past over allegations it has worked closely with the Iranian regime.


Trita Parsi, the Iranian-born émigré who moved to the United States in 2001 from Sweden, where his parents found refuge before the Islamic Revolution, should be the toast of Washington these days. As I argued in Tablet magazine several years ago, Parsi is an immigrant who in classic American fashion wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to reconcile his new home and his birthplace. And now he’s done it: The founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC, the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby, has won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action not only lifts sanctions on Iran, a goal Parsi has fought for since 1997, but also paves the way for a broader reconciliation between Washington and Tehran across the Middle East.

In Washington, to have the policies you advocate implemented with the full backing of the president counts as a huge victory. Winning big like this means power as well as access to more money, which flows naturally to power and augments it—enhancing reputations and offering the ability to reward friends and punish enemies. And yet, Parsi (who declined comment for this story) has got to be frustrated that very few in the halls of American power—either in government or in the media—are celebrating the Iran lobby for its big win. It seems the only thing people can talk about is the big loser in this fight over Middle East policy—the pro-Israel lobby, led by AIPAC. It’s as if Parsi and NIAC had nothing to do with the Obama Administration’s decision to move closer to Iran while further distancing itself from Israel.

“It’s a huge win for NIAC,” said one Iranian-American analyst who requested anonymity. “Every other part of Iranian-American advocacy—from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, to the washed-up old monarchists—is useless, and then in comes Trita and he’s slick, presentable, and knows how to build an impressive network.” So, why is the rise of the Iran Lobby both Washington’s biggest and also its least-heralded success story of the past six years?

In part, Parsi and NIAC’s relative anonymity is the work of a White House that would rather pretend that there is no Iran Lobby, in accordance with the standard Beltway wisdom that a “lobby” is any group of people who advocate things that you are opposed to (lobbies that advocate things you are for are known as “supporters”). But the White House surely knows better, in part because so many friends and graduates of the Iran Lobby now staff key Iran-related government posts. The White House’s Iran desk officer, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, for example, is a former NIAC employee. NIAC’s advisory board includes two former U.S. diplomats, Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel, and John Limbert, who was held hostage by the revolutionary regime in 1979. Past speakers at NIAC leadership conferences include Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser Colin Kahl, and the White House’s Middle East Director Rob Malley Other past speakers from the political realm include: Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to NATO; PJ Crowley, State Deptartment spokesperson under Hillary Clinton; Hans Blix, former director general of the IAEA. Other reputable names include figures like Aaron David Miller from the Wilson Center, Robert Pape from the University of Chicago, and Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institution.


The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has long been sensitive about accusations that it acts as, at best, a de facto lobby for the Islamic Republic of Iran and, at worst, an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of the Iranian regime.



Thousands of users on Twitter have been using the hashtag #NIACLobbies4mullahs to express their anger toward the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), alleging the lobbyist group does not represent their interests but rather those of the Iranian regime.

NIAC has identified itself as a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization but has faced controversy in the past over allegations it has worked closely with the Iranian regime.

“#NIAC is the most dangerous organization ever established & run by #Iran’s Islamic Regime abroad. Members of #NIAC are a bunch of fanatics & opportunists disguised as academics & intellectuals to serve the regime & protect its interests in the #US,” Babak Taghvaee tweeted using the hashtag.

“Iranians expect @TheJusticeDept to look into this hashtag: #NIACLobbies4mullahs . If true it’s a violation of FARA act. NIAC should welcome this investigation and come clean, IF they believe they are not lobbying for the regime,” Arash Sobhani tweeted.

The council’s current president, Jamal Abdi, has blamed one account with about 1,300 followers under the handle @Irandisinfo of “orchestrating the campaign” and accused the US State Department of funding it.

The #NIACLobbies4mullahs appeared online nearly five days after a campaign under the hashtag #NoWarWithIran was launched by NIAC.

The council and its founder, Trita Parsi, have in the past attempted to sue Iranian-American bloggers and intellectuals who published pieces which challenged its status as an independent non-profit.

In 2015, two circuit judges and a senior circuit judge from the US federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia forced NIAC to pay $183,480.09 in monetary sanctions to a blogger named Hassan Daioleslam. The court decided NIAC had to reimburse the blogger for the money he had spent fighting a defamation lawsuit NIAC brought against him in 2008, which was decided in his favor and dismissed in 2012.

“That Parsi occasionally made statements reflecting a balanced, shared blame approach is not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime,” US District Judge John D. Bates wrote in his ruling summary at the time.


...Former CIA officer and Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy wrote in 2009 that NIAC is part of a U.S.-based pro-Islamic jihad alliance: "Spearheaded by a de facto partnership between the National Iranian-American Council, the Council on American Islamic Relations and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line, the network includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world." Founded in 2002, NIAC has been described in the Iranian state-run media as “Iran’s lobby” in the United States since at least 2006.

Documents released during a defamation lawsuit filed by NIAC against Seid Hassan Daioleslam, editor of the Iranian American Forum and one of the regime’s most public critics, were found to include correspondence between NIAC and Mohammed Javad Zaif, then Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations...


— NIAC is alleged to have been created, directly or indirectly, by the Iranian regime's foreign minister Javad Zarif...

Middle East Forum Observer. February 2, 2025. Aidin Panahi.

Recent articles by Iranian Vice President and former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif present Iran as a nation seeking peace and stability through diplomacy. He portrays the Islamic Republic as a rational actor open to reform and ignores the regime’s past efforts to use negotiations to advance its nuclear ambitions and solidify regional influence. Zarif does not try to hide this. Earlier this month, he bragged that Tehran can shape U.S. foreign policy to its advantage. In recent weeks, he has promoted Iran’s commitment to dialogue, even as it nears nuclear breakout.

Any American official should be wary of Zarif. As Iran’s foreign minister from 2013 to 2021, he lied repeatedly to shield the regime from accountability as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps expanded its influence and operations. In a leaked audio recording, Zarif acknowledged he was merely a tool to clean up messes created by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Republic’s international messes. This candid admission should raise questions about the true agenda of the de facto lobbyists in Washington and Iran advocacy groups who promoted Zarif and helped propel his agenda in the West.

Tehran uses insincere diplomacy as an asymmetric warfare strategy to advance its malign activities.

In the past, groups like the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) did a lot of the regime’s heavy lifting in Washington. While NIAC may say it received neither funding nor direction from Tehran, its meetings with Zarif appeared to set a conformity of views in subsequent advocacy. For this reason, among others, many in Congress and the executive branch view NIAC as discredited. Subsequent exposures of Iran’s clandestine nuclear sites and its nuclear archives show that President George W. Bush was right about the regime’s character and ambitions. NIAC, however, succeeded in confusing dialogue and assessments in Washington until the regime had consolidated its nuclear aims.
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NIAC&oldid=2189972"