Political activist and human rights advocate
The campaigns against advocates of Tehran interests outside Iran is not about stifling debate but ensuring a balanced one, with dissenting voices challenging those more aligned with the Islamic Republic.
The most recent example is the cancelled event at the Berlin-based German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA), scheduled to feature Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, but much better known as the former head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
Parsi, a longtime supporter of normalizing the US-Iran relations, was set to speak at GIGA earlier this month, but mounting pressure from activists, journalists, and the Iranian diaspora forced the institute to withdraw its platform.
Our position was clear: a figure with a clear history of advocacy for Tehran has to be presented as such, not as an impartial expert; he has to be contested, not granted the whole floor.
Such events as GIGA’s, we argued, undermine serious discussion about Iran and its future. It also raises concerns about why institutions like GIGA and the Körber Foundation continue to give credibility to individuals with well-documented ties to the Islamic Republic.
Parsi took Iranian journalist Hassan Daei to court over such allegations about a decade ago. Consequent US court rulings in 2013 and 2015 dismissed NIAC’s defamation lawsuit, revealing internal emails suggesting the body’s lobbying efforts against sanctions.
A troubling narrative
What we, Iranian dissidents and human rights activists, sought was never silencing someone we disagree with, but to hold accountable institutions that misrepresent as Iran expert figures promoting narratives aligned with Tehran’s interests.
GIGA did eventually cancel the event, citing security concerns. This is deeply problematic as it frames Iranian dissidents—many of whom have suffered the brutality of the Islamic Republic—as aggressors.
No one active in the campaign was a security threat.
The organizers could have opted for a balanced discussion, a forum with different perspectives on Iran. Instead, they planned a one-sided event with a speaker known for advancing Tehran’s talking points, and, when challenged, chose cancellation over honest engagement.
Think Tanks’ role
European think tanks, including GIGA and the Körber Foundation, have repeatedly platformed figures with ties to Tehran, such as Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat linked to human rights abuses.
Revelations from Iran International and Semafor last year detailed Tehran’s efforts to embed sympathetic voices in Western institutions to soften its image, oppose sanctions, and push engagement without accountability.
The influence operation, named Iran Expert Initiative (IEI) by those who designed it in Tehran, was reported to have had European support.
A core member of IEI based in Sweden, Roozbeh Parsi—Trita’s brother—said earlier this month that his Iran-related activities were backed by the UK government. This was quickly denied by officials in London.
"We have no record of funding for the IEI or any departmental work with them," the UK Foreign Office said in response to an Iran International inquiry.
So the question raised with the first IEI exposé last year remains: which European government—or governments—funded IEI?
The official inquiry launched by Sweden in response to allegations against Roozbeh Parsi and his employer, Swedish Institute of International Affairs (SIIA), may or may not answer that question. But it’s bound to bring to light more evidence about Tehran’s influence operations.
Would GIGA, SIIA and other such institutions in Europe continue to dismiss these findings or show more openness to criticisms that are ultimately aimed at more informative discussions about Iran?
Road ahead
Those of us involved in the campaign against Trita Parsi’s uncontested platform at GIGA consider its cancellation a positive step—not the balanced debate we sought but better than a free ride for voices that echo Tehran’s and help manipulate narratives in the West.
Institutions like GIGA must recognize that such events come at the cost of those fighting for Iran’s freedom and distort Western policy.
Stricter vetting of speakers is essential. Reputable centers should not leave unchallenged those pushing the agendas of authoritarian regimes. It is quite telling that such figures usually prefer to cancel rather than take part in a multi-voiced forum.
It is also essential that scrutiny is extended beyond individuals to institutions. Other western governments should follow the Swedish lead and investigate whether their public funds have fueled Tehran’s influence operations.
As Washington is set to intensify efforts to confront Iran’s rulers, officials in Europe’s capitals should join rather than undermine that campaign.
The long calls for listing the IRGC became too loud to ignore in 2022. Thousands of Iranians marched in Canada for weeks, denouncing the guards' brutality back home, they killed and maim to quell the uprising known by its central chant, Woman Life Freedom.
In April 2023, I helped organize Montreal’s first rally demanding the listing by the Canadian and UK governments. A year later, our efforts bore fruit with Parliament’s unanimous vote supporting the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist entity.
But the triumph that followed after the official listing yielded no solace. Within months, former conscripts were targeted. Branded as IRGC members, they saw their application for permanent residency (PR) denied. Procedural fairness letters piled up.
We had long warned about this and were assured by Canada’s government that the listing would be conducted with precision, ensuring that conscripts would not suffer.
Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau confirmed this publicly in a PS752 commemoration day. “We know there is more to do to hold the regime to account and we will continue our work, including continuing to look for ways to responsibly list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.”
The key word was “responsibly”. He signaled that his government understood that the designation could come with complications, particularly for conscripts, and was ready to tackle it.
That’s not how it’s turned out though. The debacle we see today is not what we fought for.
Forsaken at the edge
The listing has left countless individuals in ruins. Their accounts reveal a systemic thoughtlessness that is perpetuating this injustice.
Take Sina, a father of two, denied residency after five years of work in Canada. He was accused of being an IRGC-affiliated university lecturer during his military service. His documents, though, showed he served as a faculty member at Islamic Azad University, fulfilling mandatory service by law.
The irony is that all cards issued to conscripts completing their service in this scheme are categorized under the IRGC branch of Iran’s Military Service Organization. The IRGC’s security-oriented universities like Imam Hussain University, where real associations occur, have faculty who are career IRGC members or state affiliates, their identities largely concealed. The Canadian system, nonetheless, reduces everything to a conscription card, ignoring the realities of compulsory service.
The anatomy of compulsion
Each year, hundreds of thousands are conscripted into a mechanistic system, serving no more than two years. Assignments are normally not known in advance. A prospective conscript may be called to serve in the Army, Police, or IRGC. He would have to endure a few months of rough training followed by many more months of mundane work.
IRGC conscription—not to be mistaken with actual recruitment which leads to membership—is generally less rigorous than other military organizations, exposing the hollow grandeur ascribed to its service.
Mandatory conscription imposes duties on all conscripts, regardless of their past or branch. These typically involve administrative tasks, logistical support, or basic labor, with educated conscripts teaching or assisting in research but excluded from sensitive roles.
The banality of compulsory service is evident in the preferential treatment of those affiliated with the paramilitary Basij, who enjoy months of service reductions. Others, ordinary young men who are assigned to IRGC, are in some ways making up for the Basijis who remain fully active but in their own bases outside the conscription ecosystem.
The IRGC could never function if it relied on annual conscription or allowed the unwilling draftees to access to its modus operandi.
The importance of this fact cannot be overstated: no conscript in Iran qualifies as a member of a military organization in Iran, least of all the IRGC. Many IRGC conscripts are trained in civilian trades such as woodwork or plumbing, just as they do in the Army.
Conscription is a dated, largely unnecessary system, going back to 1925, when Iran wanted to fashion its first modern armed force. Conscripts do not join the IRGC, they are called to do their term. Conflating conscription with membership is wrong—and in Canada, at least, is destroying lives.
IRGC members arise through specialized domains, not brief, menial service often deemed the worst of youths’ lives.
The IRGC operates its own well-established, high-security universities and recruitment centers, with specialized training that prepares loyal individuals for service, be it in the Quds force, Cyber or Aerospace divisions.. To equate these members, the Sepahis, with conscripts who toil for two years to get an end-of-service card that’s required for any job, any transaction, to register marriage even, is a farce bordering on moral bankruptcy.
The Canadian government, long briefed on these matters, bears the responsibility to educate its immigration officers properly.
Guilty until proven innocent
Take another example: Alireza, whose PR application was denied because his two-year conscription with the IRGC was deemed membership. An immigration officer redefined his service as formal affiliation, claiming “membership does not have a temporal element.”
This argument, appearing in many cases, disregards the IRGC’s distinct recruitment process and its separation from mandatory military service. Even the federal court precedents referenced in refusal letters, such as Afanasyev v. Canada, 2012, are tenuous to conscription cases.
In Jalloh v. Canada, 2012, the court stated, “A person cannot be considered a member of a group when his or her involvement with it is based on duress.” That should apply to Alireza and others who had no choice but to do their time with the armed forces. Iran’s compulsory military service is by definition serving under duress.
Masoud, too, faced a refusal rooted in flawed interpretations. Despite detailing his basic training and mundane tasks like checking sign-in sheets, he received a letter that lectured him on the IRGC’s history, followed by a barrage of absurd questions: “If you are no longer involved with the IRGC, when and why did you leave?” or “Did you ever try to escape your duties?”
These betray a limited grasp of military service in Iran and severe punishments deserters face, including the loss of civil rights, acknowledged even in Canadian tribunal records.
Ironically, all those Iranians affected by the IRGC’s designation have declared their service voluntarily, while real IRGC operatives and affiliates—masters of covert operations and false identities—remain untouched. To date, no IRGC career member has been identified or penalized under current nebulous policies.
In refusal letters shared with me the individuals are accused of terrorism by a representative of the Minister of Immigration pursuant to IRPA. Shockingly, the same ministry denies targeting conscripts when speaking to Farsi-speaking outlets, cloaking itself in propaganda despite overwhelming evidence. This travesty, if deliberate, betrays any commitment to fairness and rectitude.
Trudeau’s government cannot feign ignorance of Iran’s conscription ecosystem. For years, advocates and victims laid the truth bare, only to see it dismissed. It is time to bring aspects of this truth to the forefront, demanding a fair reckoning.
The Fight for Redemption
Kaveh Shahrooz, a Canadian lawyer and advocate for listing the IRGC, likens conscripts to hostages of the regime. Freed at last, many are now finding their lives taken hostage again by their innocent past, by an immigration system that purports to be fighting their hostage-takers in Iran.
Some among the Iranian community in Canada—accused of sympathizing with the Islamic Republic—have sought to take advantage of the conscripts’ plight, demanding the removal of its terrorist designation. Former conscripts and families have condemned this move, stressing that they are “innocent individuals forcibly conscripted and enslaved by the IRGC.”
Feeling abandoned by Canada’s Liberal administration, they hope for reprieve through other legislative avenues. Bill C-350, introduced by Conservatives, serves as an example and proposes an exception for conscripts. Thousands have rallied behind it, motivated by Pierre Poilievre’s assurance of protection for those conscripted.
Resolving this issue is crucial for Canada’s standing and could set a precedent for nations like the UK and Australia. Failing to address conscripts’ suffering risks eroding diaspora support, already scarred by the IRGC’s brutality. Should this tragic course continue, there will be only one victor: the IRGC.
True accountability demands Canada hear the voices of innocent conscripts today and confront its failure with integrity and principle.
His response followed a report by Sweden’s TV4 and an article by Expressen, one of Sweden's most prominent dailies, which accused him of involvement in a network linked to Iran’s ministry of foreign affairs.
On Tuesday, TV4 reported that Parsi, the brother of former NIAC president Trita Parsi, had been connected to an Iranian initiative aimed at shaping Western policies.
The investigation, which cited emails provided by Iran International, followed a 2023 joint exposé by Iran International and Semafor that detailed Tehran’s efforts to cultivate relationships with academics and analysts abroad to expand its influence.
Sophie Löwenmark, a columnist for Expressen, wrote on Friday that “Parsi has participated in an advocacy network for a brutal dictatorship that today is a threat to Sweden, Swedish-Iranians, and Jews.”
She argued that his engagement had been secretive, without disclosure to his employers, and concluded that “this is not how someone you have full confidence in acts, but rather someone who appears to be the mouthpiece of the mullahs in Sweden.”
Parsi rejected her remarks in a response published by Expressen, saying that he had no financial ties to the Islamic Republic. He emphasized that his role as an academic allowed him to engage with different parties without political consequences.
“Unlike states, I do not represent any party and can therefore speak to everyone,” he wrote.
He also said that he participated in the Iran-led initiative on behalf of the British Foreign Office, not the Swedish Institute for International Affairs, arguing that TV4 and Löwenmark had omitted that detail.
“Certainly, Iran's aim with the initiative was to influence the West, but the participants' motives were something else entirely,” Parsi noted, adding that Western governments used such interactions to strengthen their positions in nuclear negotiations with Iran.
He dismissed criticisms from some Swedish-Iranians over his alleged ties to the Islamic Republic, saying, “My ‘crime’ is that I refuse to follow their lead and don't paint everything related to the Middle East and Iran in bright colors consistent with their ideologies.”
Löwenmark responded in Expressen, challenging Parsi’s arguments. She argued that he acknowledged Iran’s intent to influence Western perspectives but failed to address leaked data showing that participants actively collaborated with Tehran’s interests through ghostwriting and other methods. She also noted his lack of transparency about how he joined the network or why he kept his participation hidden from colleagues.
“More importantly, he doesn’t seem to mind being part of a confidential circle convened by one of the world’s most brutal and repressive states,” she wrote. “It is inexplicable that he does not seem to realize the significance of the fact that the agenda of this secret network was not human rights, taxes, or welfare—but nuclear programs.”
Swedish MP says Parsi promoting Iran's interests
Swedish lawmaker Nima Gholam Ali Pour on Saturday accused Parsi of "promoting the interests of the Iranian regime", vowing to follow up his dismissal from taxpayer-funded the Swedish Institute for International Affairs at the Parliament as his employment is "completely unacceptable."
"If individuals like Rouzbeh Parsi—who sympathize with Sweden’s enemies—are to work at the Institute, why should the Swedish people fund such an organization? The Institute might as well reach out to the mullahs and ask for money," the Swedish MP of Iranian origin said in a post on his X account.
