Ten Congressional Democrats who support the Iran nuclear deal have taken money from pro-Iranian regime lobbyists with ties to the Iranian government.

FrontPage Magazine’s master sleuth Daniel Greenfield reports that the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) has contributed to the following Pro-Iran deal Democrat “traitors”:

Iranian émigré dissident Hassan Daioleslam, who beat a defamation lawsuit brought by the Iran Lobby after he exposed them and their activities, detailed the origins of the IAPAC in 2007:

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.

Daioleslam wrote that, in a 2006 interview with a government-controlled newspaper, regime official Sadegh Kharazi praised Trita Parsi, the Swedish-Iranian head of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), and stated that “there is actually an existing Iranian lobby in US.”

In 1999, Parsi and his wealthy companion in Iran, Siamak Namazi, “presented a joint paper titled, ‘Iranian-Americans: The bridge between two nations,’ at the DAPIA conference organized by the Iranian government in Cypress.” Daioleslam explained:

This report comprises the manifesto and roadmap of the new Iranian lobby in the US. In this paper, the authors suggest that: “an Iranian-American lobby is needed in order to create a balance between the competing Middle Eastern lobbies. Without it, Iran-bashing may become popular in Congress again.” The “competing lobby” was AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). The pillars of the road map were:

• To have the appearance of a citizen’s lobby.
• To mimic the Jewish lobby in the US.
• To impede Iranian opposition activities.
• To infiltrate the US political system.
• To break the taboo of working with Iran’s cleric rulers for the Iranian Diaspora.
• To improve the image of the Iran’s government abroad.

In their desire to mimic the “Jewish Lobby” they created IAPAC (Iranian American Political Action Committee).

Daioleslam reports (emphasis added):

Trita Parsi has been reciting this comparison to the Israeli lobby since the late 1990’s, about the time that the High Council was formed. At the beginning his tone was more contentious and resembled the mullah’s usual rhetoric. While he has toned down his anti-Israeli remarks in his English communiqués, the governmental newspaper Aftab published on December 28, 2006 an interview with Trita Parsi. In his introduction, the reporter underlined the role of Parsi’s lobby on behalf of the Iranian regime. The article’s title is interesting: “The Iranian Lobby Becomes Active.” Translation:

The conflict between Iran and the West on Iran’s nuclear file has entered a critical state. The government must now utilize all the possible resources to defend the national interest. In this, we have not paid enough attention to the potentially significant influence of the Iranian American society in moderating the extremist policies of the White House. In comparison of this untouched potential to the influence of the Jewish lobby in directing the policies of Washington in supporting Israel, we see the difference between what is and what could be.

And now we know that this Iran Lobby is buying the Democrats.

This, of course, explains a lot. It is always worthwhile to recall the lessons of Whittaker Chambers, who, horrified to learn the KGB was offering money to American Communists, who should have been willing to do the bidding of the Soviet Union on principal, demanded an explanation from his KGB overlord. The man from Moscow told Chambers that it was very simple: “Who pays is boss, and who takes money must also give something.”