The ‘Iranian Lobby’ and the Rights Watch
Uncomfortable Middle Eastern questions for two American NGOs.
By The Washington Post Editorial Board
Feb. 5, 2026 5:31 pm ET
Two stories about NGOs—the nongovernmental organizations that news reporters love to quote to smuggle their own views as someone else’s analysis—caught our eye this week. And not only for reasons of schadenfreude.
The first concerns Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, which supports an isolationist U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Parsi previously founded and led the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which advocates friendlier U.S. policy toward the Tehran regime.
Prof. Foad Izadi, an Iranian expert on America who appears on state TV, was asked about Iran’s lobbying efforts on an debate program released Sunday. “Our way should be discussed off the record,” he said.
“Our way was Trita Parsi, right?” his student interlocutor asked.
“Yes—no, this is being recorded!” he replied.
Mr. Izadi went on to explain that a previous Iranian President sought an “Iranian lobby” in the U.S., but this has proved too weak, more trouble for the regime than it was worth.
Mr. Parsi shared a statement by NIAC in reply: “NIAC is 100% an Iranian-American organization and has no connection to the Islamic Republic,” it said, denying that the video clip supports claims to the contrary.
In the clip, Mr. Izadi’s interlocutor didn’t mince words: “You made a lobby there called NIAC, which dishonored Iran” by failing in its mission, he said. It certainly hasn’t been able to influence President Trump. The regime has misread him every step of the way.
The second story concerns Human Rights Watch, the watchdog captured long ago by anti-Israel obsessives. On Tuesday its “Israel/Palestine director” resigned, denouncing Human Rights Watch for not being anti-Israel enough.
Omar Shakir says the top brass blocked his team’s report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” for not accepting a Palestinian “right of return.” The latter is the idea, required nowhere else, that Israel must accept the millions of descendants of the Palestinians Arabs displaced in the 1948 war they started until there’s no longer a Jewish state.
Human Rights Watch says the report didn’t meet its standards. Even Ken Roth, under whose leadership (1993-2022) Human Rights Watch waged political warfare against Israel, said the report used an “unsupported legal theory.” In reply Mr. Shakir asked if Mr. Roth has “different rules for Palestine.”
Mr. Roth, who hired Mr. Shakir and took such relish in denouncing Israel, now learns a hard lesson: Once you start abusing the language of human rights for political purposes, it isn’t easy to stop.
Source
