Sunday
Mar212010
Iran Snap Analysis: A Rights-First Approach in Washington?
Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 10:06 
A three-minute news clip to note: Al Jazeera English considers the US policy towards Tehran and uses two analysts --- Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council and Arash Aramesh --- to suggest that attention to human rights should take over from a focus on the nuclear programme.That in itself might not be stunning were it not for context and timing:
The Latest from Iran (21 March): Happy New Year, Mr Ahmadinejad
1. At Parsi's NIAC hearing 10 days ago, the panel on US-Iran relations was totally focused on the nuclear issue and a possible "grand settlement" with Iran. There was scarcely a word on rights. Parsi seems to be promoting a policy beyond that "realist" promotion.
2. But it may not just be Parsi; it may be folks inside the US Government. Beyond Barack Obama's Nowruz message calling on Tehran to accept the rights of its people, there are signs that this might be part of a new policy and not just rhetoric.
Indeed, it may be possible that the US Government is now letting Iran dangle on the engagement of nuclear talks precisely because it does not think a deal should be the be-all and end-all, given the internal tensions in the country. That would explain why the State Department has been so stand-offish on weeks of Iranian signals that it wanted to reopen discussions on an uranium swap.
More in an analysis later this week....
Reader Comments (10)
@Scott Lucas
" Parsi seems to be promoting a policy beyond that “realist” promotion. "
realism as in the ideology or Iranian nationalism. If its the latter I think its because of some US officials sneering at him when he doesn't say what they want to hear.
I saw this last night and was happy to hear someone (Arash Aramesh) say that new sanctions won't be effective but *will* give bragging rights vis-a-vis their constituencies to the lawmakers who voted for them. Sadly, this piece about what "many Iranian-Americans say" didn't interview hardly any. There was another one not so long ago that did interview Iranian-Americans on the street saying they wanted ore focus on human rights and less on the nuclear issue, but I can't find it right now.
danial,
"Realist" as in a US Government approach that puts emphasis first and foremost on matching US geopolitical and economic interests v. those of Iran, looking for a settlement that meets American objectives while being acceptable to Tehran.
S.
Yes, NIAC and particularly Parsi have finally gotten focused in recent months, and are pushing a "rights-first" approach hard. (Parsi testified to Congress last month that the policy should be changed in that direction.) This is irrespective of what the panelists at their event may or may not have said, since those speakers represent their own points of view and are not obliged to follow NIAC's line. It will be interesting to see if the Administration is 'biting'.
I thought I heard at least a little bit more about human rights than Scott did at the NIAC event, especially one segment that I'm going to bug him about on the main timeline comments in a few minutes :)
That was "bug" not "but" LOL
Just received a call from a (religious) Iranian friend on visit in Germany. He strongly recommends sanctions on Iranian oil exports, as they are the main source of income for this regime to hold up oppression of the people. To him a tripartite move formed by sanctions, popular and political resistance is the best tactics to cripple the regime and bring it down finally. He admitted that people would suffer, but stressed the advantages.
He also reported on heavy govt propaganda and that the regime has managed to scare the people by killings, arrestations and relentlessly summoning all political activists and journalists. Nevertheless even religious Iranians have commenced to doubt the regime's news and even the system as a whole. Also parts of the clergy favourise the separation of state and religion.
Nowruz mobarak to EA and all of you!
Arshama
The notion of Parsi as a human-rights activist is quite frankly laughable. Ask anyone that has been seriously focusing on Iranian human rights over the last decade--from Mehrangiz Kar to Payam Akhavan to Ramin Ahmadi to student leaders like Ali Afshari, Ahmad Batebi, and Akbar Atri--and they will tell you that Parsi had consistently campaigned AGAINST their cause, up until changing stripes after the elections.
Lily,
I agree. I also add the change of color did not come immediately after election; it came several months after he rode the nuke wagon that was not going anywhere.
I'm not sure what to think about Trita Parsi and NIAC overall. I've tended to generally use caution in being critical of them, because (especially recently) I can see how one could dislike the regime but still come to similar policy conclusions as NIAC. However, some other instincts of mine tell me there may be something "off" about him, and I should hold off on actually defending him.
I guess in the end I've only been watching them closely for less than a year, and that doesn't seem to be enough time to render a verdict.
Kevin Scott, I could not agree with you more. that is exactly my reaction. We as outsiders have jumped into long running debates out of our immediate depth, and my perceptions of the NIAC and Parsi are as yours. I've also learned that not all those most bitterly opposed to NIAC are 'monarchists' as I once assumed. I do appreciate an activist green lurker's post though. I will say that so far, while I don't implicitly trust him or distrust him one way or the other, what I've heard from them since I've been closely following I agree with generally.