Rise of the ‘Iran Lobby’

Known supporters of the Tehran regime such as NIAC (founded in 2002), CAIR (founded in 1994), the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII, founded in December 2005) and their associates have methodically fostered an expansive web engaged in influence operations in the United States. In recent years, they have been joined in promoting appeasement of Iran by several newer organizations, including the Center for a New American Security (CNAS, founded in February 2007), the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI, founded in June 2008), and the American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP, founded in December 2008).

A number of these groups count prominent Middle East and Iran experts among their boards and advisory councils, as well as a shifting cast of pro-regime advocates who periodically  swap leadership positions in these and other organizations. What is more, whether directly influenced by the pro-Iran lobby network or not, several established fixtures on the Washington and New York think tank landscape – such as the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,  the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for Science and International Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center – have also  weighed in urging the United States to eschew any consideration of a military option to deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in favor of diplomatic measures in preparation for living with a nuclear Iran.

It has taken at least a decade of maneuvering behind the scenes of Washington policymaking to create this “Iranian Lobby” for the purpose of edging U.S. foreign policy on Iran closer to the preferred positions of the clerical regime in Tehran.  Participating organizations have benefited from the support of powerful business interests associated with and/or seeking the favor of the mullahs that have a deep stake in perpetuating  the status quo.  Some may even  view expansion of Iranian dominance in the Persian Gulf as to their benefit. Available evidence, moreover, suggests that the Iran Lobby in America is coordinated in Iran at various government levels and within establishment circles both governmental and industrial. An official agency of the Iranian regime called The Supreme Council for Iranians Living Abroad was formed at the highest levels of the Iranian regime at some point in the early part of the decade with the specific objective of “establishing specialized groups and non-governmental bodies among Iranians living abroad.”² This should come as no surprise since the Iranian government’s  has sought to influence U.S. policy from the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.

A glimpse of Tehran’s more recent role in the establishment and activities of its lobby in America can be found in frank discussions about the National Iranian-American Council in regime-controlled media such as the Fars News daily. For example, in a March 2007 piece, Fars News describes NIAC as a “non-profit” organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a legal lobby group, and to enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the United States in order to “penetrate U.S. politics.”³ Interestingly, the same Fars News article drew a comparison between what it termed “harassment” against NIAC by so-called American “neocons” and an “increase in negative publicity” against CAIR, implying at the least the two share a common agenda.⁴

In fact, while details about the full extent of CAIR’s partnership with advocates for the Iranian regime in the United States are difficult to pin down, it is easy to document CAIR’s public support for the Islamic Republic, which closely parallels and sometimes overlaps that of NIAC and other affiliates in the Iran Lobby network.  CAIR as an organization, as well as individual CAIR representatives, long have taken a public stance that minimizes the criminality of Tehran’s human rights abuses, its non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threats of genocide against the state of Israel and support for terrorism throughout the Middle East. CAIR’s public positions also have advocated a policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives and negotiations with the Tehran regime, while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions or the threat of military action.

Sometimes, CAIR (or other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates) and other members of the Iran Lobby make joint public appearances or statements, as when former Iranian president Khatami visited the U.S. in 2006. Another example also dates from 2006, when an interfaith group of religious figures joined in drafting and signing a statement entitled, “Words, Not War, With Iran.” Among the signatories was Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism funding trials.⁵ The statement’s core message urged “that the U.S. engage in direct negotiations with Iran as an alternative to military action in resolving the crisis.”⁶

Interestingly, as will be described later in this report, a similar statement under the same title was issued by a group of former military leaders and foreign policy officials in August 2006. Among those signatories are two names that are prominent among the Iran Lobby network of influential Washington-based organizations. They are Ambassador Charles ”Chas” W. Freeman, a member of the AIC’s Board of Directors, and retired Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, one of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran’s experts.