While it’s clear that the Islamic Republic benefits from cultivating American sympathizers, it’s less clear what America gains from admitting them into top policy-making circles. 

One of those sympathizers, Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, visited the White House at least five times in the last two years, meeting with the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, and the Biden administration’s Mideast coordinator, Brett McGurk, the Free Beacon reports Tuesday.

Mr. Vaez was implicated last week in reports by Iran International and Semafor that included emails indicating he was a member of a small group cultivated by top Iranian officials. According to Iran International, Mr. Vaez failed to gain security clearance to join the administration’s Iran negotiating team.  

Mr. Vaez is a protege of President Biden’s former top Iran envoy, Robert Malley, whose security clearance was revoked in the spring for reasons yet to be explained by the administration. The Department of State has repeatedly declined to comment on Mr. Malley’s suspension, citing “privacy considerations.” 

Another close associate of Mr. Malley, who has been identified by the Iran International and Semafor reports as a member of the influence group of think tankers known as the Iran Experts Initiative, Ariane Tabatabai, is serving as chief of staff for the Pentagon’s undersecretary for special operations.

Thirty-one Republican senators, including the ranking members of the Intelligence, Foreign Relations, and Armed Services committees, have called on Secretary Austin to suspend Ms. Tabatabai’s security clearance, pending full investigation into her Tehran ties. 

In meetings leading up to the signing of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, “there was a group of people that pushed for weaker and weaker American positions,” the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, tells the Sun. The three Americans and several Europeans mentioned in the Iran International and Semafor reports were part of the group, he says.

A physicist and former weapons inspector, Mr. Albright says that while he has pushed policy makers to tighten inspections and necessary requirements to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, members of that group constantly pushed back against measures to restrict the number of centrifuges and other tough American demands. They often did so in an aggressive manner, at times using “nasty” personal attacks, he says.   

“I found it very disconcerting that Americans asked to water down” American positions, Mr. Albright says. They were notably “ignorant on the technical side of the Iranian nuclear program,” he adds. Instead, “what they said in meetings is that they know what’s going on in Iran.” 

Indeed, defenders of those named in the two press reports constantly claim that their ties with Iranian officials and their expertise on Iran add perspectives that help American policy makers understand Iran’s decisions.

It would be wrong to say that such observers understand Iran and its motivations and plans “in a way that is not already, and better, known by the U.S., Israeli, and British intelligence communities who are readily available to policy makers,” a former intelligence community Iran lead, Norman Roule, tells the Sun. 

The judgments of some think tanks are limited and even skewed by their access to only open-source information, and in some cases due to personal and institutional biases, Mr. Roule, who is now an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran, adds.

Tehran officials understand these biases and target individuals they believe will put Iran’s agenda in the best light, he says. American policy makers have been known to provide sympathetic think tank voices with access to senior officials or even time in the limelight if doing so will support their policy initiatives.

Since the two reports were published last week, Washington has become embroiled in a fierce debate between defenders and critics of the people mentioned in them. Mr. Vaez issued a 32-part thread on X, characterizing the reports as spewing “venom” from “opponents of diplomacy.” He has since then reposted all X postings that defend him. 

Yet Mr. Vaez failed to address the veracity of an email that according to Iran International he sent to the former Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, writing, “as an Iranian, based on my national and patriotic duty, I have not hesitated to help you in any way.” Similarly, Ms. Tabatabai is yet to explain why in emails she asked advice from Tehran officials on attending conferences in Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as congressional hearings where she was scheduled to testify.     

The state department’s spokesman, Matthew Miller, noted that the emails in question were from “almost a decade ago.” A former negotiator for several administrations, Aaron David Miller, wrote on X that “the clear effort to discredit @AliVaez and others is wrong and shameful,” adding that disagreements should not lead to personal attacks on good people. 

“Whether someone is a good person or in favor of diplomacy is irrelevant,” the UANI policy director, Jason Brodsky, tells the Sun. What counts is that the reported emails “purport to show a degree of coordination with the Iranian regime that crosses the line.”