Many states have recognized the importance of having lobbies operating abroad to advance their interests and improve their images, through having their own media instruments or buying airtime and providing financial support to media outlets in partnership with others.     

The tremendous advances in communications globally has enabled lobbies to have their own media platforms more easily than before, and with incomparable cost, through websites and social media networks, especially Telegram and YouTube. These tools have become an alternative to high-cost visual media, which requires a broad network of relationships linking the lobbying group with its target audience and surroundings abroad.

Lobbying activities were limited to Western countries for many years, particularly in the United States; the Israeli lobby was the first of such lobbies until the emergence of a new pattern of State -backed lobbies. These lobbying and pressure groups operate in their respective regional surroundings and spheres of influence to pursue the interests of the countries that back them.  

Different Patterns

For many years, the United States was the primary destination and the first playground for many foreign interest pressure groups and lobbies.  In 1948, the Israeli lobby took shape in Washington, before evolving to the current form as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee "AIPAC", founded in 1959, then extended its activities to several Western states, especially Britain and France. The same approach was adopted by the Armenian lobby, the second largest lobby after the Israeli lobby in the United States, which also operates in many European countries.

Although it has only recently been established, the Iranian lobby in the United States managed to influence some issues of specific concern to Iran, and turned at a later stage to expand its activities to several regional states like Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.  

Remarkably, the goal and mechanisms of a state media lobby are generally linked to other types of activities of lobbies for the same state, which typically owns shares in advertising companies or law firms or research institutions, all of which work to serve their goals, while the media lobby is the voice for that state and the one making presence for it abroad.

The media lobby does not necessarily need to have its own conventional media outlets of newspapers and television channels, but it should have cadres capable of influencing public opinion, establishing a wide network of relationships with the media in the targeted state. Thus, the media lobby exerts its influence by having its cadres actively present in media, to be hosted in TV programs and write articles in newspapers, as the case with the Iranian lobby in the U.S. 

Multiple Objectives

The objectives of media lobbies abroad are numerous, including the following:

1- To improve the state's image: it is the elemental role for which it was created, as evident in the Iranian lobby in the U.S. That lobby, composed of an unlimited number of social, medical and educational institutions and businesses, has a responsibility to improve the image of Iran, and craft a positive mental picture about Iranians. It also utilizes individual success stories of Iranians and their interest in education, making them qualified to hold senior positions abroad. 

Through the multiple media outlets it owns and partly finances, the Israeli lobby seeks to achieve the same goal, particularly in relation to the repeated attacks on the Gaza Strip and clashes with Hamas. 

2 -To influence the political decision: in general, this is done by contributing to shaping public opinion and creating supportive opinion trends for the interests of certain countries, with political, economic and social influence. Prominent in this objective, the Israeli lobby followed by the Armenian lobby, as they both enjoy good relations with powerful decision makers in the United States and Western countries in general, as well as American media organizations. It is important to note that the Israeli lobby constitutes an important component, through businessmen who have their own media and larger shares in major media organizations in the country.

The Armenian lobby in some Western countries has contributed to continuing tension as key feature in its relations with Turkey, due to the historic controversial issue in relation to the "Armenian genocide". In this regard, the Armenian lobby tries to perpetuate a negative view of Turkey and focuses on its record on human rights, through many newspapers owned by the Armenian lobby in the U.S. and other Western countries, notably France, which has adversely affected, and still does, Turkey's efforts to join the European Union.

Similarly, the Iranian lobby in the U.S. managed to influence the American decision on the Iranian nuclear file, according to many observers, through a large number of Iranian institutions active in the United States, most notably and most active is the National Iranian American Council "NIAC", headed by Trita Parsi, renowned political analyst in the American media, featuring influential journalists and Iranian researchers in international media.  

Iranian lobbying groups have succeeded over the years in blocking any decision to wage war on Iran. This success was despite the fact that the nuclear crisis has teetered in certain periods on the brink, during the presidency of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by illustrating the risks of such move on American interests in the region, putting forward the negotiations as an effective alternative to the military option, which Washington has repeatedly threatened to use.

Nevertheless, the greater success was in signing the framework agreement with the "5 + 1" group in April 2015, then reaching a final agreement in July of the same year. It is also worth mentioning in this respect the role exercised by the Iranian lobby in blocking U.S. air strikes against the Syrian regime after being accused of using chemical weapons in the attack on Eastern and Western Ghouta in Reif Damascus in September 2013.

3- To expand spheres of control and influence: Iran worked on deploying lobbying groups in many countries of the region, taking advantage of the instability and political vacuum that followed the war on Iraq. However, these groups exert other types of influence different than that of its lobby in the U.S. and Canada, as it is based on a sectarian dimension, humanitarian aid, shelters and relief organizations that have had their way into Iraq after 2003, and into Lebanon. This is expected given Iran's strong relationship with Hezbollah, which opened the road to Southern Lebanon for Shiite institutions. These attempts extended also to Syria particularly after 2011.    

Yet, the most prominent activity of Iranian lobbies in these countries is the extensive network of relationships through which the Iranians were able to influence media outlets, to defend and adopt Iranian visions and improve Iran’s image among Arabs, as well as employing them to mount campaigns against some states in the region.

In the same vein, many Israeli institutions, especially the media, address the Arab public opinion through producing several Arabic-language newspapers, and have a presence on social media in Arabic, by prominent organizations or individuals in these institutions, with the aim of communicating with Arab readers.   

In conclusion, amid escalating conflicts in the region and deepening disagreements between regional and international powers, it can be argued that these institutions may play a growing role over the coming period.