A Different IRGC Has Invaded Western Media

By: Jennifer Kouzi March 27, 2026

Whether the war in Iran is a success or not, or how to even define success, can be debated by military and diplomatic experts now and later. But what is presently inarguable is the cross-network, pro-regime messaging that Americans are frequently reading in print and hearing on news networks.

The reason for this is clear: a different IRGC (not the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) has invaded Western media. This is the IRGC 2.0 – what I like to call the Influence Repetition & Gaslighting Corps – a gaggle of talking heads (“Iran experts”) platformed across the media. The IRGC 2.0 gives the American people common talking points – laundered through mainstream media – to shape the narrative. (CAMERA wrote about two members of the IRGC 2.0 on ABC News recently: Trita Parsi and Negar Mortazavi.)

This coordinated media messaging has been going on for years. One anti-regime Iranian account called “Historical Memory” posted a video on X of seven “experts” echoing former Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s talking points in January 2020, following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Other videos documented the coordinated talking points in 2019 and the echo chamber in 2022.

Outlets like NPR (including podcasts), ABC News, NBC News and more have repeatedly sought analysis from this group.  

Many of them also promote each other’s social media posts, which one “X” user likened to a “citation cartel” in academia. These “experts” constantly cite to each other, lending false credibility to their media spin. One is left with the unmistakable impression they are trying to manufacture the appearance of consensus.  

How can news consumers know whether the “expert” presented is regurgitating pro-regime talking points? Possible indicators include one or more (or sometimes all) of the following points which seem to come from a list of known entities.

Talking Points

The current U.S.-Israel action against Iran is a war of choice; there was a diplomatic option Trump did not take; U.S. was pushed or manipulated into going to war by Israel and/or did not consider the consequences 

Examples:  

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has repeatedly called it a war of choice and said the war was engineered by Israel. The first time he used the phrase “war of choice” on social media was Mar. 2, 2026, when he also said the U.S. entered the war on Israel’s behalf. On Mar. 1, 2026, on ABC News, he said “a deal was within reach.” [There was not.] 

In the days and weeks to come, Araghchi’s talking points have been echoed. 

Trita Parsi on ABC: there were opportunities to “grab a deal.” 

Ali Vaez on NPR, saying: “there was a diplomatic option on the table . . . President Trump chose not to pursue a diplomatic option…”  

Aaron David Miller on NPR: “[T]his was a war of choice” and “Netanyahu was a major factor in encouraging Trump to choose to begin this war right now.”   

Parsi on NPR: Netanyahu has had an obsession for more than 25 years to push the U.S. into a war and finally succeeded.

The Supreme Leader Declared by Religious Edict There Would Be No Nuclear Weapons  

Examples: 

Vaez said on NPR, “the supreme leader who was killed in the opening act of this war had a religious edict against developing nuclear weapons.”  

Negar Mortazavi (NPR) said there was a fatwa banning production and usage of nuclear weapons and claimed the Iranians have said it time and again that they won’t develop nuclear weapons. 

This is totally belied by the nuclear file trove Mossad lifted out of Iran in 2018. Moreover, fatwas are not immutable. 

Things are going badly for the U.S. and Israel; the U.S. did not plan well for this; it will cost America too much money; it is a “quagmire;” it is Iraq 2.0 

Examples: 

Araghchi said Iran will ensure this becomes a quagmire. Two days later, as CAMERA wrote previously, Parsi on ABC News also called it a quagmire. 

Mortazavi (NPR): “In general, we don’t see much purpose and much planning for this war to be launched…” 

Parsi (X): “Trump has already lost control over the war.”  

Mortazavi (NPR): “[F]ear of turning into really the next big, endless regime change war [Iraq] . . . is something that a lot of Iranians feel.”  

“This is a war on the Iranian people;” military action causing people to rally around the flag  

Examples: 

Mortazavi (NPR): when asked what she is hearing from inside Iran, “one of the targets was an elementary school . . . people are seeing the effects . . . the civilian casualty.” 

Parsi and Mortazavi, both on ABC, as written about by CAMERA, talked about a “rallying around the flag” 

Bajoghli (CNN): Iranians are increasingly become aware that this is a war on Iran and Iranians, driving a lot of anger and desire to protect the country. 

Vali Nasr (NPR): “I’m seeing a rallying to the flag” and on X: “Waging war on civilians will not bring US victory in this war…” 

Assassinations remove moderates (also, Larijani was a “pragmatist”) and kill off-ramps for diplomacy; new leaders appointed will just be more rigid/hawkish 

Examples: 

Nasr on NPR said, “Larijani’s replacement will be appointed by the Revolutionary Guard. This would be the extremists. With every assassination . . . the U.S. and Israel are engineering greater radicalization of Iran’s leadership.” NPR’s guest Scott Anderson says, “I think Vali has hit it on the nose.” New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof reposted and agreed with Nasr’s radicalization comments. 

Parsi (NPR) – “you’re going to have a harsher, more hawkish Iranian government in place.” 

Ellie Geranmayeh (NBC News) – warned Larijani’s death could act to accelerate “empowering the most hard-line and security elements within the Islamic Republic of Iran.” 

Nicole Grajewski (WSJ) – “There is an outcome of this war that makes the regime more entrenched and more militaristic.” 

Nasr reposting Vaez (“X”) – “Zolghadr has replaced relatively pragmatic Larijani”

Iran not surrendering; in it for the long-haul 

Araghchi (NBC): “We never give up. We never surrender.” 

Nasr: On NPR, “they have planned for a long war” and “they’re prepared to stay in this until U.S. is exhausted.” 

Dina Esfandiary (WSJ) – a member of the “Iran Experts Initiative”: “Iranians aren’t ready to end the war . . . [t]hey can . . . cause a lot of damage and disruption.” 

Of course some tweets combine everything into one – like this one from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), founded by Trita Parsi:

To contrast these omnipresent media voices, there are Iranians who, whether in country or in the diaspora, are full-throated when they speak to the media about their opposition to the regime, and despite the difficulty of living through a dangerous war, support the U.S.-Israel strikes on a regime that has oppressed them for years.  

Anti-regime Iranians in the diaspora loudly call out these regime apologists on social media. One highlighted Parsi moderating a panel with Zarif about three months ago, evidencing Parsi’s link to the Islamic Republic. Another user produced an “Islamic Republic Mouthpieces Cheatsheet.”

One Iranian-American journalist begged the U.S. media not to feature NIAC affiliates.

The media’s presentation of “experts” to American news consumers, without acknowledging their bias in favor of the Islamic Republic, raises serious questions about balance, transparency and credibility in coverage. Viewers, listeners and readers must remain vigilant and critically evaluate who they are hearing from.  

Comments are closed.