Iran has experienced months of protest, eliciting a range of emotions amongst Iranians both inside and outside the country, including grief, happiness, solidarity, and in many cases, rage. Although the ruling theocracy is the primary target of the anger and outrage, many have also directed their emotions towards the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), also known as the “Iran Lobby.” When discussing the so-called “Iran Lobby,” it is important to first define the term. It should not be considered an official lobby or arm of the Islamic Republic, but rather refers to those who promote policies that normalize, defend, or support the Islamic Republic. Such support can be direct, or indirect, often with a significant economic component. The term does not necessarily imply that the person is directly working on behalf of the regime in Tehran but refers to someone who may have a direct or indirect interest in upholding the current government. However, it's important to note that there is no consensus on the exact meaning of the term, and there is ongoing debate and disagreement about who qualifies as part of the “Iran Lobby.” Some critics argue that the term has been used unfairly, and that it can be used to stifle legitimate political debate and dissent. Nonetheless, the provided definition is a commonly used characterization of the “Iran Lobby.” Within this context, the debate on Iran policy has largely been between those who believe that the correct policy by the international community towards the Islamic Republic should involve sanctions and isolation vs. those who believe that negotiations and agreements with the regime would lead towards reforms and democratization. These positions have broadly aligned with the divide between Iranians inside who believe that the Islamic Republic is reformable and those who argue that a revolution or regime change is the only viable path towards democratization. A key battleground in this debate has been the West’s treatment of Iran, both in the context of the nuclear negotiations and general diplomacy, trade, and investment relationships in the country. Today, as Iran continues to arrest and execute protestors inside the country, many now call for a diplomatic boycott of the regime, the designation of the revolutionary guard as a terrorist entity, and a rejection of the nuclear deal or any form of economic relief for the regime. This position has garnered significant support from many Iranians who, in the face of ongoing repression, no longer believe that the regime is reformable. The death and violence caused by the regime, along with everything else, has fueled the rage against those who have long pushed the belief that reform was possible and that the Iranian regime was “not as bad” as it appears. This line of argument has had and continues to have many proponents, the majority of whom provide an analysis that blames what is taking place in Iran on the West. Their favorite arguments include claiming that Iran is not as bad as Saudi Arabia, that Western sanctions are to blame for people’s misery, and that Iran is a misunderstood actor ready to make peace if the Trumps of the world did not exist.