Why NIAC and CAIR Collaborate: A Perspective from an Iranian-American Ex-Muslim and Former CAIR Executive
By Bobby Darvish, Iranian-American Ex-Muslim, Former Vegan, Former Democrat, Former Socialist, Former CAIR-Columbus Executive Director, Former Muslim Forum of Utah President, Christian Conservative LDS
As an Iranian-American who has seen both sides of the ideological divide, I want to share why I firmly believe that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) harm the interests of Iranian-Americans who seek genuine freedom and democracy for Iran. My perspective is shaped by personal experiences with CAIR and its alliances, as well as encounters with NIAC's founder Trita Parsi, who has promoted policies that are disturbingly favorable to the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Despite his Zoroastrian background, Parsi’s actions raise serious concerns about where his loyalties lie, and his organization’s connections with CAIR raise even more red flags.
NIAC and CAIR: United by a Questionable Agenda
The collaboration between NIAC and CAIR is neither accidental nor isolated. CAIR, established with ties to Hamas, has long advocated policies in the United States that align with Islamist ideologies. CAIR is often criticized for being "Hamas USA" due to its alleged ties to the Palestinian group, which the U.S. government designates as a terrorist organizationpartnership with CAIR is concerning, especially since NIAC claims to advocate for Iranian-American interests. It is troubling that an organization supposedly representing Iranian-Americans would ally with CAIR, considering CAIR’s history of supporting authoritarian and Islamist regimes, values that are entirely at odds with the freedom and secular governance that most Iranian-Americans desire for Iran.
Trita Parsi: Advocate for the IRI in Disguise?
Trita Parsi's actions have consistently aligned with positions that benefit the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than the Iranian people or the exiled Iranian opposition. Although he identifies as Zoroastrian, Parsi’s advocacy has indirectly bolstered the IRI, particularly through his vocal opposition to sanctions and his repeated downplaying of the regime’s human rights abuses. My experience meeting Parsi during my tenure as CAIR-Columbus’s Executive Director left a lasting impression. He was eloquent, polished, and articulate, but his rhetoric unmistakably reflected sympathy for the IRI. As I learned later, his stance did not reflect the democratic aspirations of most Iranian-Americans but rather those of an apologist for the Iranian regime.
Personal Experience: The Cost of Opposing the IRI
My understanding of the Iranian regime and organizations like NIAC was shaped by painful family history. My family was among those that suffered under the IRI: jailed, tortured, and, in the case of my uncle, executed for standing against the regime. The regime blacklisted my family for years, from 1981 to 1999, with orders to arrest or kill us. My own experiences opposing the IRI have earned me a spot on their blacklist once again, a reminder of the lengths to which this regime will go to silence dissent.
During my time with CAIR, I was married to a woman from a family with close ties to the Islamic Republic, something I only realized later in our marriage. Her family’s support for the IRI and her eventual malicious abandonment of our marriage underscored the ideological divide that can tear families apart when one side supports freedom and democracy while the other aligns with oppressive forces. This personal history has left me acutely sensitive to organizations that appear to sympathize with or indirectly support the IRI. My journey out of Islam, my transition to Christianity, and my political transformation were deeply influenced by my disillusionment with the agendas that CAIR and NIAC promote.
NIAC’s Role in Undermining the Iranian-American Community
Trita Parsi and NIAC’s consistent lobbying against sanctions on Iran and their opposition to measures that would weaken the regime’s power reveal an agenda that does not prioritize Iranian-American interests. While most Iranian-Americans seek a secular, democratic Iran, NIAC’s efforts seem to protect the current regime. For instance, Parsi has repeatedly argued that sanctions harm ordinary Iranians, yet he seldom acknowledges that it is the regime itself—through corruption, mismanagement, and violent repression—that is the real cause of Iran’s suffering.
Furthermore, it is curious to note that Parsi’s wife, who is Arab, may have ties to the region’s networks that historically align with the Islamic Republic. I wonder if Parsi and his family visit Iran without fear, despite his supposed opposition to the regime. This question remains a point of curiosity, as many true dissidents cannot even imagine returning to Iran without risking their lives. My family and I do not have that luxury due to our outspoken stance against the regime.
The Problematic Influence of NIAC and CAIR on U.S. Policy
CAIR and NIAC both influence American policy to serve agendas that ultimately benefit authoritarian regimes. While CAIR works to normalize Islamist views in the U.S., NIAC’s lobbying efforts have repeatedly pushed to weaken the stance of the U.S. government against Iran. These organizations do not represent the broader Iranian-American community, which largely opposes the IRI and yearns for a democratic, secular Iran. Instead, they push for policies that align disturbingly well with the IRI’s interests, often cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric that obscures the real consequences of their advocacy.
Conclusion: Why Iranian-Americans Must Reject NIAC and CAIR’s Influence
As a Christian conservative and ex-Muslim who has seen both sides of the ideological spectrum, I urge Iranian-Americans to reject NIAC and CAIR’s influence in our community. Their collaboration serves only to empower the Islamic Republic of Iran and diminish our voice as Iranian-Americans who genuinely support freedom, democracy, and human rights for Iran. I hope my story and perspective will encourage others to critically examine the motives and actions of these organizations, which claim to represent us but, in reality, work against our values and aspirations.
Citations:
- Council on Foreign Relations. "Hamas." https://www.cfr.org
No comments:
Post a Comment