Darvish Intelligence: Why Trita Parsi and NIAC Are Not Good for Iranian-Americans

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Why Trita Parsi and NIAC Are Not Good for Iranian-Americans

Why Trita Parsi and NIAC Are Not Good for Iranian-Americans

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

For Iranian-Americans who long for a free and democratic Iran, understanding the forces that shape policies in the United States regarding Iran is critical. Organizations like the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi, have positioned themselves as the supposed voice of Iranian-Americans. However, many within the Iranian-American community, including myself, believe that NIAC’s influence often leans in favor of policies that indirectly support the Islamic Republic of Iran, rather than the cause of freedom, democracy, or even basic human rights for Iranians.

My perspective on Trita Parsi and NIAC is informed by my own journey as an Iranian-American who has firsthand experience with the Islamic Republic’s brutal oppression. My family suffered at the hands of this regime. We were persecuted, blacklisted, and lived in constant fear due to our opposition to the government in Iran. My uncle was executed, my family was jailed and tortured, and I grew up under the shadow of a regime that sought to silence and punish dissenters. From 1981 to around 1999, we were blacklisted, meaning that if we set foot in Iran, we would be arrested, tortured, or worse. This reality profoundly shapes my understanding of Iran and how policies impact our people.

In the early 2000s, I was active in Muslim and Iranian-American communities. I was the Executive Director of CAIR-Columbus, and I served as President of the Muslim Forum of Utah. During this time, I met Trita Parsi, who led NIAC with a focus on influencing American foreign policy towards Iran. Initially, I wanted to believe NIAC was advocating for the rights of Iranian-Americans and Iran’s oppressed. However, I quickly grew skeptical of Parsi’s intentions and NIAC’s policies.

Despite being of Zoroastrian descent, Trita Parsi seemed, in my opinion, to promote policies that were more sympathetic to the Islamic Republic than to the freedom-loving Iranian diaspora. His policy positions often aligned with the goals of the regime, whether through advocating for softer stances in U.S.-Iran relations or opposing stronger sanctions that could pressure the regime. While he claims that his stance is about preventing war, it’s hard not to see his advocacy as indirectly preserving the status quo in Iran, where the Islamic Republic maintains power through fear and force.

For context, my ex-wife, whom I married during my time with CAIR, came from a family deeply connected to the Islamic Republic, with ties to mullahs in Iran. I was unaware of these affiliations when we married, and it became a source of conflict when I realized the depth of her family’s alignment with the regime. This ultimately led to a painful divorce, as she chose to abandon our marriage, leaving me questioning the allegiance of those close to the regime. For someone whose family suffered immensely at the hands of the Islamic Republic, it was a betrayal that resonated deeply.

What troubles me about NIAC’s influence in the Iranian-American community is its refusal to condemn the regime outright or to support the opposition groups striving for freedom and democracy in Iran. Iranian-Americans who oppose the regime often find themselves isolated or labeled as extremists for wanting real change. NIAC, instead, paints a picture where diplomatic engagement is seen as the only path forward, a stance that essentially enables the Islamic Republic to continue its oppressive rule.

One pressing question I have is whether Trita Parsi and his family, including his Arab wife, visit Iran freely or have connections that allow them safe passage. This question is not trivial. If they can travel to Iran, it raises concerns about the nature of their relationships with the regime and whether their actions are guided by personal interests that align, at least tacitly, with the Islamic Republic’s oppressive agenda. For many Iranian-Americans like myself, who risk persecution simply for voicing opposition to the regime, the idea of any American or Iranian-American being able to visit Iran freely while promoting policies favorable to the regime is deeply disturbing.

NIAC’s stance, under Parsi’s leadership, creates an impression that Iranian-Americans support appeasement of the regime, which is far from the truth. In reality, many of us see this appeasement as a betrayal of our people, our families, and the dream of a free Iran. We need organizations that genuinely represent Iranian-American interests—not groups that prioritize diplomatic ties at the expense of Iranian lives and liberty.

Iranian-Americans deserve advocates who will stand unequivocally for freedom, not those who silently acquiesce to tyranny under the guise of preventing war. As an Iranian-American, ex-Muslim, and someone who deeply values freedom and democracy, I believe that Trita Parsi and NIAC are not the allies that our community needs. Instead, we must support movements that genuinely stand against the Islamic Republic and for a free Iran.

Citations