News Archives

AAIRIA Representatives to Visit New York During the United Nations General Assembly NEW YORK — September 2026 — Representatives of the Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) will travel to New York from several U.S. cities and states during the United Nations General Assembly. While in New York, AAIRIA representatives plan to participate in peaceful protest activities, hold meetings, meet with members of the Iranian community and others concerned about Iran, and raise awareness about the Islamic Republic’s human rights record and the continuing repression of the Iranian people. A central focus will be the deadly crackdown on the December 2025–January 2026 nationwide protests. Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRA) has documented a confirmed minimum of 7,068 people killed, including 236 children, and at least 53,987 people arrested or detained. HRA stresses that these are verified minimum figures and do not necessarily represent the full scale of the crackdown. Those arrested have faced allegations of torture and other severe mistreatment, coerced confessions, denial of access to lawyers, and proceedings lacking basic due-process protections. Human rights organizations have documented expedited proceedings involving capital charges and reported that Iranian authorities executed at least 29 people arrested in connection with the recent protests between March and the end of August 2026. Scores of others remain at imminent risk of execution. AAIRIA will also condemn the presence of representatives of the Islamic Republic in the United States while political prisoners, protesters, women, religious minorities, and perceived opponents of the government continue to face repression inside Iran. Our message to world leaders is straightforward: the Islamic Republic does not represent the Iranian people. The international community should condemn the killing, imprisonment, torture, and execution of protesters and ensure that the voices of Iranians are not erased from decisions concerning their country’s future. We ask those meeting with representatives of the Islamic Republic to confront the human rights record of the government sitting across the table. Iranian women have faced arrest and punishment over mandatory hijab enforcement, while peaceful expression, including music, dancing, and demands for equality, has repeatedly resulted in state restrictions and prosecution. Iran’s people should not become an afterthought in negotiations about Iran. Any diplomatic process concerning Iran’s political future must recognize that agreements reached with officials of the Islamic Republic are agreements with an illegitimate government, not consent given by the Iranian people themselves. The rights, security, and political aspirations of Iranians must have a meaningful place in international discussions affecting their future. During our time in New York, AAIRIA representatives hope to meet with journalists, human rights advocates, members of the Iranian community, policymakers, and others committed to accountability and to an Iranian future determined freely by its people.

Dear President Peñalver: On September 9, 2026, I submitted a formal complaint regarding Georgetown University’s 2026 Iran Lecture Series. That letter raised specific concerns and asked Georgetown several direct questions. To date, I have received no substantive response. Since then, those concerns have received national media attention. On September 11, The Daily Wire published an article, “Georgetown Gives Pro-Iran Apologists The Stage In New Lecture Series,” detailing the controversy surrounding Georgetown’s selection of the four speakers and reporting concerns about the absence of Iranian dissidents and other opposing voices from the series.The article also reported that Georgetown University did not respond to its request for comment before publication.  I will not repeat those arguments here. Instead, this second letter places Georgetown on notice of additional information concerning two of the individuals it has selected to instruct students about Iran: Trita Parsi and Sina Azodi. These concerns are particularly relevant because Georgetown has assigned Parsi to explain “Iran’s Grand Strategy and the Future of U.S.-Iran Relations” and Azodi to explain “The U.S., Iran, and the Nuclear Question.” These are not peripheral subjects. Georgetown presents these individuals as experts who can help its students understand the motives, strategic calculations, and nuclear objectives of the Islamic Republic. I. Trita Parsi: New Questions Georgetown Should Examine Our first complaint discussed Trita Parsi’s institutional and policy associations. This letter raises a different issue: the historical record surrounding how Parsi and his policy advocacy have been discussed by individuals inside the Islamic Republic itself. Iranian state television has aired a remarkable discussion in which Iranian political figures discussed Trita Parsi and NIAC in the context of efforts to develop an Iranian lobbying presence in Washington. Why were Iranian insiders discussing Trita Parsi and NIAC in this context? What precisely was their understanding of Parsi’s activities in Washington? Georgetown should examine the original Persian-language footage, its complete context, and the competing interpretations rather than simply ignoring it. Georgetown now has an additional reason to conduct such scrutiny. Trita Parsi’s brother, Rouzbeh Parsi, became embroiled in controversy in Sweden over the Iran Experts Initiative following disclosures about communications between Iranian officials and Western-based analysts. An independent Swedish investigation raised concerns about transparency and aspects of his conduct, and Rouzbeh Parsi subsequently left his position at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. None of this establishes that Trita Parsi is an agent of the Islamic Republic, and we are not making that allegation. It does, however, make Georgetown’s decision to present him as an authoritative interpreter of Iran’s grand strategy worthy of considerably more scrutiny than the university appears to have exercised. II. Sina Azodi: Serious New Questions About Iran and the Bomb A review of Sina Azodi’s newly published book, Iran and the Bomb, reveals a clear central argument: Iran’s nuclear program should be understood as a long-term national project driven “less by ideology” than by strategic considerations, including security, “strategic loneliness,” technological modernity, and political independence. He argues that this strategic logic transcended both the Pahlavi monarchy and the Islamic Republic, an interpretation that many experts on Iran’s nuclear program dispute. This is an extraordinarily consequential interpretation of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions. It therefore raises a fundamental question: How does Azodi establish what Iranian officials actually intended and what motivated their nuclear decisions? One source he repeatedly relies on is his own father, Hormoz Azodi, who spent his career working on critical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. Our review identified approximately 20 substantive passages in which Hormoz Azodi is quoted, paraphrased, or relied upon as a source for claims about Iran’s nuclear history and internal decision-making. These are not merely family anecdotes. Hormoz Azodi is used to explain Iran’s nuclear-fuel strategy, enrichment technology, internal AEOI deliberations, the effects of the Iran-Iraq War on Iranian nuclear thinking, early centrifuge development, dealings associated with the A.Q. Khan network, and other sensitive episodes in Iran’s nuclear history. In one particularly important passage, Sina Azodi describes his father as having “direct knowledge of Iran’s dealings with the Khan network” and relies upon him to explain Khan’s motivation for cooperating with Iran. Another extraordinarily important source is Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Islamic Republic nuclear negotiator. Mousavian’s name appears 74 times in the searchable text of Iran and the Bomb, including in narrative passages, endnotes, repeated citations, and references to his published works. Azodi explicitly thanks Mousavian for responding to his “many questions” and for providing what he calls “invaluable insight into Iran’s internal deliberations on the nuclear issue.” That presents a basic methodological question Georgetown should expect Azodi to answer: When a book argues that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions were driven less by ideology than by rational strategic considerations, how much of the evidence concerning the regime’s internal motivations comes from the retrospective accounts of people who themselves participated in Iran’s nuclear establishment and nuclear diplomacy? Interviewing participants is entirely legitimate scholarship. Being an author’s father does not automatically make a source unreliable, and having served as an Iranian negotiator does not automatically make Mousavian’s testimony false. But neither source is independent of the history being investigated. Their accounts therefore require rigorous corroboration, particularly when those accounts support the book’s central interpretation of the motives behind Iran’s nuclear program. III. The Book’s Own Evidence Raises Questions About Its Thesis Georgetown should address another contradiction during Azodi’s October 1 presentation. Azodi’s own book describes the post-revolutionary nuclear program as seeking fissile-material capability and technology for what he calls a “nuclear deterrent force.” The book also quotes Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani explaining that once Iran mastered uranium enrichment and the nuclear fuel cycle, neighboring states would “draw the proper conclusions.” Azodi describes the resulting policy as the deliberate cultivation of strategic ambiguity. Iran ultimately enriched uranium to levels vastly exceeding those required for ordinary civilian power generation while accepting extraordinary economic, diplomatic, and security consequences. For decades, Iranians paid the price: sanctions, isolation, lost economic opportunities, enormous expenditures on the nuclear program, sabotage, and ultimately military confrontation. If Iran’s leadership was behaving principally as a rational actor seeking national security, then a fundamental question follows: Why accept such extraordinary costs and risks to preserve near-weapons nuclear capability when Iran possessed numerous other means of deterrenceContinue reading “SECOND FORMAL COMPLAINT — New Concerns Regarding Trita Parsi and Sina Azodi in Georgetown’s 2026 Iran Lecture Series”

Dear President Peñalver: I am writing to file a formal complaint concerning the 2026 Iran Lecture Series organized by Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding within the Walsh School of Foreign Service. Georgetown’s own promotional material presents four consecutive speakers, Narges Bajoghli, Sina Azodi, Trita Parsi, and Ali (Mohammad Ali) Kadivar, addressing authoritarianism in Iran, the nuclear issue, Iran’s grand strategy, U.S.-Iran relations, and democracy.[1] By way of background, I am Lawdan Bazargan, Director of the Alliance Against IRI Apologists (AAIRIA), an Iranian-American advocacy organization that documents and challenges the Islamic Republic’s influence networks, propaganda, and efforts to shape public discourse in Western institutions, particularly academia, media, and policymaking. I am also a former political prisoner who was arrested in Iran at age 16. My brother, Bijan Bazargan, was executed by the Islamic Republic during the 1988 massacre of political prisoners. For me, the consequences of how the Islamic Republic is understood, represented, and confronted are therefore not abstract academic questions. This is not a detached historical seminar. Georgetown’s event description for the October 1 lecture explicitly asks what Iran’s nuclear program looks like “after the 2026 US-Iran war” and what a future diplomatic agreement with Iran might entail.[2] At a moment when war, deterrence, nuclear proliferation, sanctions, terrorism, human rights, and the future of U.S.-Iran relations are live national-security questions, the intellectual architecture of a policy series at the School of Foreign Service matters. My objection is not that any of these speakers should be silenced or disinvited. They have every right to speak. My objection is that Georgetown appears to have assembled an entire Iran series from speakers whose public records repeatedly intersect with the same NIAC-centered policy and advocacy ecosystem, while failing to provide comparable representation to serious Iranian voices who fundamentally disagree with that ecosystem’s assumptions and policy prescriptions. That is not robust debate. It risks creating the appearance of consensus where substantial disagreement actually exists. The documented pattern deserves scrutiny Trita Parsi. Parsi is not merely a scholar who once appeared at a NIAC event. He is the co-founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council and is now co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.[3] In 2018, a political advertisement paid for by NIAC and signed by Parsi, Nader Hashemi, and Ali Kadivar urged the U.S. government to cease efforts to destabilize Iran, adhere to the JCPOA, and provide economic relief.[4] Narges Bajoghli. Bajoghli spoke at a 2018 Capitol Hill briefing organized by NIAC on Iranian protests and U.S. policy, and she later signed a 2021 letter published by NIAC urging the incoming Biden administration to return quickly to the JCPOA and ease certain sanctions.[5][6] Johns Hopkins has also described her decade of research among media producers in the IRGC, Basij, and Ansar-e Hezbollah.[7] That research access is academic work and should not be misrepresented as evidence that she is affiliated with those organizations. But it makes the absence of direct, equally serious countervailing perspectives, including former political prisoners, victims’ families, and analysts who view the IRGC and the Islamic Republic through a substantially different lens, even more striking. Sina Azodi. NIAC’s own April 2024 progress report states that, during its advocacy activity in Washington, it “gathered experts” including Azodi to discuss how to secure a ceasefire and prevent a broader regional war involving Iran.[8] Georgetown has now selected Azodi to address the nuclear question and the shape of a possible post-war diplomatic agreement.[2] Ali (Mohammad Ali) Kadivar. Kadivar was also a signatory to the 2018 political advertisement paid for by NIAC.[4] At the same time, Boston College describes his scholarship as growing out of his experience as a participant-observer in Iran’s pro-democracy movement.[9] That distinction is important: I am not asserting that Kadivar is an Islamic Republic operative. The concern is the recurring overlap with one policy network and the lack of an equivalent counterweight in Georgetown’s speaker selection. Nader Hashemi, the center director organizing the series. Hashemi’s documented engagement with NIAC-related programming is longstanding. A U.S. Department of State archive records him as a participant in a 2011 NIAC conference in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, with Trita Parsi presiding.[10] Hashemi also signed a 2020 letter of solidarity with NIAC and appeared on NIAC’s 2024 post-election symposium panel on U.S.-Iran policy and diplomacy.[11][12] Georgetown identifies Hashemi as the director of the Alwaleed Center and an associate professor in the School of Foreign Service.[13] Taken together, these facts do not establish that every speaker is an agent of the Islamic Republic, and I am not making that allegation. They do establish something Georgetown should be willing to confront directly: every announced speaker has a documented intersection with NIAC or NIAC-sponsored advocacy or programming, and the center director has multiple such intersections over many years. Yet the announced series does not appear to include a comparable set of speakers from the many Iranian-American, dissident, human-rights, national-security, or policy communities that sharply dispute NIAC’s approach to sanctions, deterrence, the JCPOA, the IRGC, or engagement with Tehran. Why this is more than an academic programming dispute The School of Foreign Service states that its purpose is to educate future leaders who will make the world safer and that it seeks to enhance the range of perspectives in its curriculum and programming.[14] Georgetown’s president has likewise said that the university should be a place where “diverse people and perspectives are celebrated” and “dialogue thrives.”[15] At a school whose graduates enter diplomacy, national security, government, journalism, and foreign-policy institutions, systematic omission of competing analyses can have consequences beyond the classroom. The danger is not that students will hear controversial views. They should. The danger is that consequential claims about Iran may be presented repeatedly without direct challenge from informed critics, leaving future decision-makers with a narrower understanding of contested evidence, assumptions, and policy tradeoffs. A strong foreign-policy education should not teach students what to think about Iran. It should expose them to the strongest competing argumentsContinue reading “Formal Complaint Regarding Viewpoint Diversity, Iran Policy Programming, and the 2026 Iran Lecture Series – Georgetown University”

The Alliance Against the Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) strongly condemns the deeply misguided framing of two recent letters addressed to Iran’s political prisoners: the open letter published in The Guardian, “To Iran’s political prisoners, trapped ‘between two blades of a scissors,’” and Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi’s subsequent “An (Alternative) Open Letter to Iran’s Political Prisoners.” Both claim solidarity with Iranians imprisoned by the Islamic Republic, yet both are astonishingly disconnected from the actual struggle taking place inside Iran. Iranian political prisoners do not need Western academics to tell them that their struggle is really about “imperialism,” “Zionism,” or preserving the supposedly noble “anti-imperialist pulse” of the 1979 revolution. They know why they are in prison. They live under a theocratic dictatorship where genuine political pluralism does not exist, elections are tightly controlled, ultimate authority rests with an unelected Supreme Leader, and the state polices what people wear, drink, say, believe, and whom they love. Women face legal discrimination in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, and other fundamental areas, while polygamy remains legal and discrimination against religious minorities is embedded in the system. Iranians are punished for dancing, drinking alcohol, protesting, organizing, speaking freely, and demanding political change. This is what Iranians are fighting against. Their struggle is for the right to choose what to wear, to sing, dance, love, speak, believe or disbelieve, organize politically, and live without fear of torture or execution. Ultimately, it is a struggle for the right to live under a government chosen by the people rather than a theocratic dictatorship claiming divine authority over them. Yet the authors of these letters transform this concrete struggle for basic human freedom into a discussion of their own ideological preoccupations: imperialism, Zionism, colonialism, capitalism, and global “carceral systems.” The Guardian letter acknowledges the Islamic Republic’s torture, executions, sham trials, and repression, but quickly places Iranian prisoners between the Islamic Republic on one side and American and Israeli “imperialist and Zionist forces” on the other. It then devotes substantial attention to Palestinian prisoners, ICE detention centers, colonialism, Israel, and American history. How far can one possibly travel from the lived reality of the people one claims to support? Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi goes even further. He tells Iran’s political prisoners that the resistance of Iran, “the state and the people”, against “imperialist domination and Zionist expansionism” is among the “most cherished achievements” of the Iranian revolution. He then warns the very people imprisoned by that revolution: “Do not allow the imperialists and Zionists to instrumentalize your just causes in order to delegitimize the anti-imperialist pulse of this revolution.” Think about what that means. People are sitting in the Islamic Republic’s prisons because they challenged the system created by that revolution. Some have been tortured, some have spent years in solitary confinement, and some face execution. And your message to them is to make sure they do not delegitimize the revolution? For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has used precisely this vocabulary, “anti-imperialism,” “resistance,” and “anti-Zionism”, to justify authoritarianism, censorship, executions, proxy warfare, isolation, and repression. “Anti-Zionism” has even been used to accuse Iranians of being Israeli or Mossad agents and send them to prison or the gallows. These ideas did not liberate Iran. The Islamic Republic used them to destroy it. The hostility between the Islamic Republic, America, and Israel did not emerge in a vacuum. The regime seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held American diplomats hostage for 444 days. For decades, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” became official political rituals, and confrontation with both countries became central to the regime’s identity. Yet in these letters, history seems to begin only when America or Israel reacts. Recent negotiations make this framing even harder to defend: Washington has demonstrated a willingness to offer major sanctions relief and economic incentives in exchange for limitations on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while the Islamic Republic continues to use confrontation, regional militancy, and the Strait of Hormuz as political leverage. Does “imperialism” only exist when America or Israel acts? Most offensive of all is the timing. August marks the anniversary of the 1988 massacre of political prisoners in Iran, when thousands of prisoners, many already tried, sentenced, and serving their sentences, were brought before so-called death commissions, executed, and secretly buried in unmarked mass graves. Families were denied even the right to know where their loved ones were buried or to mourn them openly. Nearly four decades later, Iranian prisoners continue to face executions, torture, arbitrary detention, forced confessions, and sham trials. And this is the moment you choose to lecture them about anti-imperialism and Zionism? Is this your idea of solidarity? Real solidarity begins by listening to Iranians rather than imposing Western ideological frameworks upon them. The defining slogan of the 2022 uprising was not “anti-imperialism.” It was Woman, Life, Freedom. The song Baraye, which became an anthem of that uprising, spoke of the ordinary things Iranians had been denied: freedom, dignity, happiness, clean air, personal choice, and a normal life. When millions of Iranians again poured into the streets across hundreds of cities in January 2026, their slogans were not about imperialism or Zionism. Their slogans were against the regime, for freedom, for Iran, and for their national interests. They reflected the desire to reclaim their country and their lives from the occupying force of the Islamic Republic, a regime they despise and reject, and one that treats Iran and its people as possessions to be controlled rather than a nation to be served. Thousands were slaughtered during the crackdown, many of them young people and ordinary citizens. They did not die for abstract ideological theories. They died because they wanted to live normally, without constant surveillance, compulsory religion, morality police, censorship, and the fear that a protest, a song, a social-media post, or an opinion could destroy their lives. That is the Iranian struggle. Iranian political prisoners are not props in anyone’s ideological war against America, Israel, capitalism, imperialism, or Zionism. They are human beings fighting forContinue reading “AAIRIA Statement: Iranian Political Prisoners Are Fighting for Freedom, Not Your Ideological Fantasies”

 Call for Accountability Regarding Public Commentary by Dr. Sina Azodi  We, the undersigned scholars, journalists, human rights advocates, and members of civil society, express serious concern regarding the public conduct and analytical framing used by Dr. Sina Azodi, who is presented in international media as an expert on Iran and affiliated with George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.  Academic expertise carries significant responsibility. Scholars who speak publicly on matters of international security must present analysis that is historically grounded, intellectually honest, and respectful toward journalists and fellow participants in public debate.  Our concerns fall into several areas.  1. Distorted Historical Context  In his public commentary on Iran’s nuclear program, Dr. Azodi often begins the historical narrative at a point that suggests the Islamic Republic’s pursuit of nuclear capability is primarily a defensive response to external threats, particularly the Iran–Iraq War.  Such framing omits critical historical context that is essential for an honest analysis of Iran’s security posture, including:  The 1979 seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran, during which American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days.  The early revolutionary rhetoric of the Islamic Republic included state-sponsored slogans of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”  The Islamic Republic’s declared policy during the early years of the revolution was to export its revolutionary ideology across the region.  Escalatory rhetoric and ideological confrontation contributed to regional instability in the years surrounding the Iran–Iraq War.  A credible scholarly analysis must address the full historical record rather than selectively presenting a narrative that portrays the Islamic Republic solely as a reactive actor.  2. Misrepresentation of Nuclear Intent  Some Iranian officials have publicly admitted that efforts toward developing nuclear weapons capability existed but were later denied or obscured once they were exposed, while other figures within the regime have openly advocated for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. At the same time, Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 60% purity, far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy, has raised serious alarm among international nonproliferation experts.  Civilian nuclear programs typically enrich uranium to 3–5%, and even advanced research programs rarely exceed 20%.  The accumulation of large quantities of uranium enriched to 60% significantly shortens the technical path to weapons-grade material. Any credible discussion of Iran’s nuclear program must address this reality.  3. Conduct Toward Journalists  In a widely circulated interview with VOA Persian journalist Mahtab Vahidi Rad, Dr. Azodi responded to questioning not with substantive evidence or analysis but with dismissive remarks, telling the journalist to “stop saying wrong things” and even declaring that the reporter was “not a journalist.”  Such behavior falls far short of the professional standards expected of scholars who represent major academic institutions in public forums.  Scholarly disagreement should be expressed through argument and evidence, not through personal attacks on journalists.  4. Statements Normalizing State Violence  In other public comments, Dr. Azodi has suggested that states commonly respond to perceived threats by using lethal force against protesters.  Such statements risk normalizing the violent suppression of civilian dissent and undermining the voices of Iranian citizens who have protested peacefully for freedom and political rights.  Academic analysis should illuminate such abuses, not excuse them.  5. Questions Regarding Academic Credentials and Professional Advancement  Dr. Azodi has been elevated to a prominent role as a public expert on Iran despite the relatively early stage of his academic publication record.  Given the influence such positions carry in shaping public discourse and policy discussions, it is reasonable to ask how such a role was granted and whether normal academic standards and procedures were followed.  Universities have an obligation to ensure that individuals presented as experts meet the highest standards of scholarship and professional conduct.  6. Questions Regarding Past Legal Record and Professional Judgment  Publicly available court records from Fairfax County, Virginia, dated January 16, 2008, indicate Sina Azodi was charged with a prostitution-related offense under Virginia law. The record reflects a misdemeanor conviction, with a sentence of 30 days of jail time fully suspended, 12 months of unsupervised probation, and a monetary fine.  The existence of such a record raises legitimate questions about professional judgment and conduct for someone serving in a position of influence within a university environment and working closely with students.  7. Responsibility of Universities  Universities play a critical role in shaping public understanding of complex global issues.  When academic institutions promote individuals as experts in media and policy discussions, they also assume responsibility for the intellectual rigor and professional conduct of those representatives.  When commentary repeatedly omits crucial historical context, dismisses legitimate questions from journalists, or appears to align closely with narratives promoted by authoritarian regimes, it damages both public trust and the institution’s reputation.  Our Call  We therefore call on George Washington University to:  Until these questions are addressed transparently, public confidence in the institution’s academic integrity will remain at risk.  Scholarly debate is essential to a healthy academic environment. But academic freedom must be accompanied by intellectual honesty, respect for evidence, and respect for those who ask difficult questions.  Signed By:  Dr. Shirin Ebadi, Iranian Nobel laureate, lawyer, writer, teacher, and a former judge and founder of the Defenders of Human Rights Center in Iran  Dr. Houchang Hassan-Yari, Professor of Military and Strategic Issues & Middle East, Kingston, Ontario, Canada  Dr. Kylie Moore-Gilbert, British-Australian political scientist and former hostage of the Islamic Republic of Iran  Dr. Farhad Keyan, Physicist and President of Netservia LLC 

PRESS RELEASE May 27, 2026 The Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) welcomes the University of Arkansas’ decision to move forward with the removal of Shirin Saeidi from her tenured position. For years, Saeidi has attempted to portray herself publicly as a victim and martyr of “freedom of speech.” However, the growing controversy surrounding her conduct was never fundamentally about freedom of speech. It was about accountability, professional ethics, institutional rules, and the treatment of others whose lives and testimonies she used in her academic work. Tenure exists to protect academic freedom, open inquiry, and lawful expression. It does not grant immunity from university procedures, ethical standards, or institutional regulations. Freedom of speech is not freedom to ignore bureaucracy, violate university policies, misrepresent sources, or dismiss concerns raised by those directly affected by one’s work. Multiple individuals, including former political prisoners and victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran, have publicly challenged the accuracy and ethics of Saeidi’s representations of their identities, memoirs, and experiences. These concerns include allegations of distortion, fabrication, misleading framing, and the presentation of individuals’ views in ways they strongly dispute. AAIRIA also calls on Cambridge University and Cambridge University Press to conclude their ongoing investigation into the ethical and scholarly concerns surrounding Saeidi’s work. The prolonged delay in resolving these matters has deepened concerns regarding institutional accountability and research integrity. Academic institutions must understand that survivors of political repression are not raw material for career advancement, ideological experimentation, or prestige-building. Their pain, memories, and testimonies deserve accuracy, dignity, and ethical treatment. AAIRIA believes that genuine academic freedom depends on trust, rigor, transparency, and accountability. When those principles are undermined, universities have a responsibility to act.

Dear Dr. Kiss, I am writing on behalf of the Alliance Against the Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) to urge Union College to take clear, principled institutional action in response to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ongoing crimes against humanity, including the mass killing of protesters and the systematic oppression of women. From January 8 to January 9, 2026, Iranian security forces carried out one of the deadliest crackdowns in the Islamic Republic’s history. Verified reporting by Amnesty International, United Nations experts, and eyewitnesses documents the regime’s use of automatic weapons, mass arrests, enforced disappearances, torture, and the pursuit of wounded protesters into hospitals under a nationwide internet blackout. Thousands were killed. Tens of thousands were detained. Families were forced to search through rows of bodies, and many were threatened into silence. Senior political figures publicly defended the system responsible for this violence and portrayed protesters as enemies deserving the harshest punishment. In this context, recent public statements by former President Mohammad Khatami have drawn sharp criticism from Iranian civil society. He characterized the protests as a “large, pre-planned conspiracy” driven by foreign interference, framing the unrest as the result of external involvement rather than domestic grievance. Such rhetoric, particularly when protesters are already facing lethal force, risks delegitimizing civilian dissent and portraying demonstrators as foreign agents. In a climate of severe repression, labeling protesters in this manner can further endanger their lives and reinforce the narrative used to justify state violence. Mohammad Khatami remains one of the Islamic Republic’s most senior and long-serving political figures. While often described internationally as a “reformist,” he consistently defended the preservation of the Islamic Republic’s governing framework, including during prior waves of student repression. His political legacy is inseparable from the system now responsible for mass killings and systematic suppression. Leila Khatami, his daughter, currently holds a professorship at Union College. Public records indicate that she completed her education and early academic career at major state universities in Iran during a period when her father held senior government positions, including as a member of Iran’s parliament, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, and later President. Those offices played central roles in regulating universities, suppressing dissent, and enforcing ideological conformity within Iran’s educational system. While AAIRIA does not allege individual wrongdoing, Ms. Khatami’s trajectory unfolded within a political system in which access to elite institutions is often shaped by patronage networks, ideological alignment, and quota-based admission structures. Iran’s university system has long operated under forms of quota and preferential pathways tied to political status, revolutionary credentials, and regime affiliation. In such an environment, proximity to senior power structures confers undeniable social and institutional advantages. The broader concern, therefore, is not personal guilt but structural privilege and elite continuity: the pattern in which individuals closely connected to authoritarian leadership are able to access top educational institutions domestically and later live and work within liberal democracies, while the regime they are linked to systematically denies those same opportunities and freedoms to its own citizens. A public petition calling for review of Dr. Leila Khatami’s immigration and residency status has already garnered more than one hundred thousand supporters, reflecting widespread concern among members of the Iranian diaspora and human rights advocates. These concerns are substantive and persistent and will not dissipate through silence or delay. Recent statements from U.S. officials indicate increased scrutiny of individuals connected to senior figures in sanctioned or authoritarian regimes, particularly where questions of privilege, access, or foreign influence arise. Against this backdrop, Union College’s decision to shield and defend a high-profile beneficiary of such a political system raises legitimate reputational and ethical concerns. We wish to be clear: AAIRIA does not engage in arbitrary or unfounded campaigns. Our advocacy is evidence-based and consistent. As you may be aware, our efforts have led to concrete outcomes, including the termination or removal of Mohammad Jafar Mahallat, Shirin Saeidi, Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi, and Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini from their respective positions, as well as the forced retirement of Hossein Mousavian. These outcomes followed sustained institutional review, public scrutiny, and engagement with relevant authorities. Ignoring these concerns is therefore not a viable strategy. AAIRIA has repeatedly demonstrated that it will pursue all lawful and ethical avenues available, including engagement with local and state officials, members of Congress, the U.S. Department of State, and the Department of Education; public documentation and reporting; and, where necessary, peaceful public advocacy. These steps are taken reluctantly but decisively when institutions decline to respond. This is not a call for collective punishment. It is a call for institutional due diligence. We respectfully request that Union College conduct a transparent review of Ms. Khatami’s appointment and affiliations. Such a review should examine the circumstances of her recruitment, any intermediaries involved, potential conflicts of interest, and whether enhanced vetting standards are warranted in light of escalating geopolitical realities and documented foreign influence efforts tied to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Universities have historically stood at moral crossroads during periods of authoritarian expansion. They have either resisted systems of repression or, through normalization and passivity, inadvertently enabled them. Given your family history shaped by displacement, political imprisonment, and flight from authoritarian rule in Hungary, you understand the consequences of silence in moments like this. Union College now faces a question of institutional integrity: whether it will acknowledge the broader ethical implications of regime-connected privilege in the United States during a time of extraordinary violence in Iran. We are asking for transparency, leadership, and courage. Thank you for your attention and for considering the responsibilities that accompany academic leadership in a time of moral crisis. Sincerely,Lawdan BazarganDirectorAlliance Against the Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA) February 16, 2026

Full English Transcript of the Interview Many activists outside Iran believe that officials of the Islamic Republic regime have turned Iran into a hell for its people, yet they send their own children abroad to enjoy welfare, security, jobs, and educational and academic opportunities. One of these activists is Ladan Bazargan, a political and human rights activist. Ms. Bazargan, these days you have been very active regarding the case of Fatemeh Larijani. Who is Fatemeh Larijani, where does she live, and what does she do? Hello to you and your viewers, and my condolences to the brave people of Iran. Fatemeh Larijani is the daughter of Ali Larijani. Her mother is from the Motahhari family, whose brothers have all been in power. Along with her uncles and relatives, they have turned our country into an unbearable hell for more than 47 years, and then they send their own children abroad. She continued her studies in medicine and works at a university-affiliated hospital in Atlanta. It is also said that she herself had cancer, which makes this issue even more dramatic, considering that her uncles and relatives chant “Death to America,” while Iran has been under severe sanctions for over 40 years and thousands of Iranians lack access to medicine. Yet they send their own children abroad, to America for treatment, education, and a better life, while calling it the “Great Satan” and burning its flag. This is unacceptable to us. We contacted the U.S. Congress, the Oversight Committee, and the Education Committee, and demanded that this case be investigated. We are also in contact with the State Department, and other friends in Atlanta have organized protests. We will make sure that she cannot continue working at this university. While we believe in the principle of individual criminal responsibility, when you come from a family that has benefited from every kind of privilege and resource, and now you walk freely in the United States without condemning the crimes of this regime, we will not allow this to continue. Ms. Bazargan, can your efforts be supported legally? From a legal standpoint, what can be done? Legally speaking, her case is currently under review. They are examining how she received a green card during President Biden’s administration. The issue is that they lie in their files. I honestly say that I am glad the State Department is reviewing this. We need to see what answers she gave on her green card application and what actions she took. Experience has shown us that pressure works. Just as our campaigns against regime affiliates led to Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, Iran’s ambassador to the UN during the crimes of the 1980s, being expelled from Oberlin College; forced Seyed Mohammad Mousavian, Iran’s ambassador to Germany during the chain murders, to be retired by Princeton University; led to Seyed Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini being expelled from George Mason University; and now we are working to remove Shirin Saeedi from the University of Arkansas. Pressure works. People must cooperate and stay active. They should stop saying these actions have no effect. Sustained pressure is effective, and these cases can be pursued legally and stopped. For years, they have used their connections, money spread across institutions, and financial support to universities but pressure works. Ms. Bazargan, do you know who Fatemeh Larijani’s husband is and what he does? Yes, her husband is Seyed Mohammad Kalantar Motamed. He was accepted to Indiana University to study, and Fatemeh accompanied him. Both studied at Indiana University and obtained advanced specializations. Now, I believe he works at an important research university in Cleveland. From a security standpoint, they pose risks to the United States, because they have access to patients’ personal information. These are matters that truly endanger U.S. national security, and we must be vigilant and stop them. Hundreds of students inside the U.S. cannot obtain these positions or enter these specialties so how is it that these two arrive and reach such positions? If you look on Twitter, even former classmates have said that Motamed barely attended classes and was simply given grades. And now he holds such a position. We have spoken to Congress about this as well, and we hope to reach results. Has Ms. Larijani herself reacted or made any statements so far? We have not seen any reaction. Generally, they keep a low profile and try not to engage publicly so they can live quietly here. In my opinion, they are even involved in their father’s money laundering. They do not come here empty-handed, there are certainly hands behind this. They entered this country for larger projects and are endangering U.S. security and the safety of Iranians living in the United States. I’ve heard that she does not use the Larijani surname, is that correct? Well, her profile at the university does show it, but when she sees patients, she uses the name Ardeshir instead of her own family name. We have made several calls to the hospital and filed complaints there as well. We are now considering how to hire a lawyer in Atlanta to pursue this case further. You have explained many points, but as a human rights activist, some people ask: regardless of numbers, there are those who say, “Her father is Larijani, but she herself has the right to life.” As a human rights activist, what is your response to them? As I said, we believe in the principle of individual criminal responsibility. But you cannot use all of your father’s privileges throughout your life and reach where you are, and then claim neutrality. If this woman were an ordinary person, she would not have become a doctor. Without going through the same legal paths others must take (entrance exams and the like) she and her husband entered the best universities, including the University of Tehran, and completed their education. They benefited from facilities created by the Islamic Republic’s Foreign Ministry in the United States, obtained these admissions, entered top positions, and received variousContinue reading “Lawdan Bazargan Interview with VOA Farsi”

AAIRIA strongly condemns the recent statements by Ali Larijani, which include implicit threats toward U.S. soldiers while attempting to justify or downplay the Islamic Republic’s violent repression of peaceful protesters in Iran. Larijani’s posture is a textbook case of regime hypocrisy. While he and his brothers have spent decades as senior officials within a system responsible for killing, imprisoning, and torturing Iranians, he has simultaneously benefited from the very freedoms and protections he denounces. His family has relied on the United States for medical treatment, education, and professional opportunity, privileges categorically denied to ordinary Iranians under the regime he helped sustain. It is unacceptable for an architect and defender of state repression to threaten American lives rhetorically while enjoying the advantages of Western democratic societies through his family. This duality exposes the moral bankruptcy of the Islamic Republic’s ruling elite. AAIRIA calls on U.S. authorities to immediately review the immigration and visa status of Fatemeh Larijani and her husband, and to assess whether continued residence in the United States is consistent with U.S. laws, national security considerations, and the values of accountability and human rights. The United States must not serve as a safe haven, directly or indirectly, for the families of officials who participate in crimes against humanity while publicly menacing American interests and lives. The Iranian people deserve justice, not intimidation.Apologists and enablers of repression must be confronted, not accommodated. بیانیه اتحاد علیه مهره‌های رژیم اسلامی ایران اتحاد علیه مهره‌های رژیم اسلامی ایران به‌ شدت اظهارات اخیر علی لاریجانی را محکوم می‌کند؛ اظهاراتی که دربردارنده تهدیدهای ضمنی علیه سربازان ایالات متحده است و همزمان می‌کوشد سرکوب خشونت‌بار معترضان مسالمت‌جو در ایران توسط جمهوری اسلامی را توجیه یا کم‌اهمیت جلوه دهد. موضع‌گیری لاریجانی نمونه‌ای کلاسیک از ریاکاری رژیم است. در حالی که او و برادرانش دهه‌ها به‌عنوان مقامات ارشد در سیستمی حضور داشته‌اند که مسئول کشتار، زندانی‌کردن و شکنجه ایرانیان بوده، همزمان از همان آزادی‌ها و حمایت‌هایی بهره‌مند شده‌اند که خودشان آن‌ها را محکوم می‌کنند. خانواده او برای درمان پزشکی، تحصیل و فرصت‌های حرفه‌ای به ایالات متحده متکی بوده‌اند؛ امتیازهایی که تحت رژیمی که لاریجانی به تداوم آن کمک کرده، به‌طور کامل از مردم عادی ایران دریغ می‌شود.غیرقابل‌قبول است که معمار و مدافع سرکوب دولتی، از یک‌سو به‌طور لفظی جان آمریکایی‌ها را تهدید کند و از سوی دیگر خانواده‌اش از مزایای جوامع دموکراتیک غربی بهره‌مند شوند. این دوگانگی ورشکستگی اخلاقی نخبگان حاکم جمهوری اسلامی را آشکار می‌سازد. اتحاد علیه مهره‌های رژیم اسلامی ایران از مقامات ایالات متحده می‌خواهد فوراً وضعیت مهاجرت و ویزای فاطمه لاریجانی و همسرش را بازبینی کنند و بررسی نمایند که ادامه اقامت آنان در آمریکا با قوانین ایالات متحده، ملاحظات امنیت ملی و ارزش‌های پاسخگویی و حقوق بشر سازگار است یا خیر. ایالات متحده نباید به‌طور مستقیم یا غیرمستقیم به پناهگاه امن خانواده مقاماتی تبدیل شود که در جنایت علیه بشریت مشارکت دارند و همزمان منافع و جان آمریکایی‌ها را تهدید می‌کنند. مردم ایران سزاوار عدالت‌اند، نه ارعاب. مدافعان و تسهیل‌گران سرکوب باید با پاسخگویی روبه‌رو شوند، نه مماشات.