A Jewish magazine condemned the meeting because it included a group the article described as advocating policies of the Islamic Republic. “The fact that this meeting took place the day after five Israeli tourists were killed in what is believed to be an Iranian suicide attack on Bulgaria is a slap in the face to the pro-Israel community,” charged Alana Goodman, writing in Commentary magazine.
The four groups that attended the White House meeting were the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), Iranian Alliances Across 
The West Asia Council is not as well known as the others. It is headed by an Iranian, Alidad Mafinezam, but deals with Turkey and the Arab world as well as Iran. It is based in Canada, which made it a surprise addition to the White House invitation list.
It isn’t known if other organizations were invited but did not attend.
Iranian-American groups have been invited to the White House before, but as part of the general Middle Eastern or Muslim communities, not exclusively to discuss issues of concern to Iranian-Americans.
There was also a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, a presidential assistant who was born in Shiraz where her father was a doctor in the American-sponsored hospital, and with Cyrus Amir-Mokri, an assistant secretary of the Treasury and highest-ranking Iranian-American in the Administration.
The meeting prompted vicious criticism of the White House and NIAC in the Jewish magazine Commentary and a strong pushback by NIAC.
The Commentary article said NIAC “advocates for policies supported by the Iranian regime, including opposition to sanctions and acceptance of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.”
It quoted Parsi as writing just after the Bulgaria bombing: “US officials have privately expressed concern that one of the purposes of Israeli attacks in Iran [referring to the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists] has been to generate an Iranian response that could serve as a casus belli [justification for war] for Israel. That way, Israel could target Iran’s nuclear facilities without paying the heavy political cost of starting a preventive war.”
Jamal Abdi, an officer of NIAC, responded with a blistering commentary published on huffingtonpost.com that accused Commentary of publishing “a racist attack against Iranian-Americans.”
Abdi said Goodman “suggested that Iranian-Americans should not be allowed to engage with their own elected officials because of the actions by the Iranian regime….
“Her implication that Americans of Iranian descent should be punished for the crimes of the Iranian regime is despicable…. The neo-conservative movement’s bigoted racism aimed at Iranian-Americans is nothing new, but its efforts to silence us has never been so blatant.”
Goodman’s article did not condemn the White House for meeting with Iranian-Americans in general, but rather for including NIAC among the invited groups. The article’s first sentence was:
“White House officials held a daylong meeting yesterday with the National Iranian-American Council, a group that advocates for policies supported by the Iranian regime, including opposition to sanctions and acceptance of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.” Its last sentence said, “If the White House is now back to courting NIAC, that raises serious concerns.”
Goodman’s article left the impression that NIAC was a tool of the Islamic Republic. The article mentioned economic sanctions and uranium enrichment, but not NIAC’s criticisms of the Islamic Republic’s conduct with regard to human rights and democratic practices.
The Goodman commentary read like a partisan political attack on a Democratic president for cosseting the nation’s enemies, a very common theme from the right for two-thirds of a century.