Saturday
Nov142009
Iran: The Political Attack on the National Iranian American Council
Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 7:52
The Latest from Iran (14 November): Political Fatigue?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard --- why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an "Iran" label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.
On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Times paraded an alleged exposé, "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules", of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing "questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law" and its warning to "prominent Washington figures" that they "could come to regret their ties to the group".
Neither length nor the article's placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack.
Lake's piece follows weeks of allegations by The Weekly Standard, that NIAC is beyond political acceptability. (Far from coincidentally, the magazine has been pursuing the same line with J Street, the Jewish activist group that often criticises Israeli policy.) The articles claims to rest on thousands of NIAC documents filed in a lawsuit that NIAC's Trita Parsi has brought against Hassan Daioleslam for defamation. Daioleslam, who provided the documents to The Standard and then to Lake, charged in 2007 that NIAC was lobbying for Iran.
Lake cites a total of two of those thousands of documents, both e-mails from Patrick Disney, NIAC's acting policy director. One looks for a campaign to challenge the Obama Administration's appointment of Dennis Ross to shape policy on Iran, and the other queries if NIAC might be acting as a lobby although it has not registered under the Lobby Disclosure Act. (It should be noted that Disney claims that he wrote the e-mail when he had just joined NIAC and from a position of little legal expertise and that Lake carries the rebuttal.)
And that's it, really. Instead of offering any further evidence, or indeed referring to the court's deliberations on the documents Lake asked "two former federal law-enforcement officials" --- former FBI associate deputy director Oliver "Buck" Revell and former FBI special agent in counterintelligence and counterterrorism Kenneth Piernick --- "to review documents from the case showing that Mr. Parsi had helped arrange meetings between members of Congress and [Iran Ambassador to the United States] Zarif". They offer Lake's dramatic flourish:
Now, Mr Lake might want to correct me on this, but he has just asked for a legal opinion from two people who are not lawyers but federal police officers. He might want to expand on why he put their reactions above the line which he then sneaks in: "Two lawyers who read some of the same documents said they did not provide enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Parsi was acting as a foreign agent." Instead of letting this sink in for the reader --- the only legal experts cited have just said that the charge is without foundation --- Lake simply runs to a new possibility: Parsi is using his NIAC position for financial benefit, for himself and/or Iranian associates such as Siamak Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour, who just spent four months in detention in Iran.
For this is an article resting on the bedrock of insinuation. Parsi, who claims to represents Iranian-Americans, is not an American but "a green card holder". NIAC lies when it claims to represent many Iranian-American, for it "had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer". Parsi, who has brought a lawsuit against someone for claiming he is an agent of Iran, still might be a foreign agent --- "Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and unofficial spokesman for Iran's opposition Green Movement, told The Times, 'I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic.'"
Let me be clear: I am not here to offer any judgement on the specifics of whether NIAC is a lobby --- if there is doubt, that is a matter for US federal authorities to determine. (It should be noted, however, that the salient issue is whether NIAC is a lobby, not whether it is a lobby acting on behalf of the Iranian Government --- that is another conflation in Lake's article.) I offer no judgement on the charges of improper financial and political behaviour by Trita Parsi; that is a matter for the court handling the defamation lawsuit --- NIAC's response to Lake emphasizes that the case is ongoing, as "the judge [has] denied [Daioleslam’s[ motion to dismiss the case on 18 out of 19 counts".
Instead, I ask: why now this campaign against NIAC by The Weekly Standard, now abetted by Mr Lake --- unsurprisingly, within hours of the article's appearance, the magazine was hailing the "blockbuster exposé"? What is it that is so threatening about its activities that it must be put out of action through allegations about its credibility and a "hands-off" notice to any politician, diplomat, or businessman who might choose to engage with it? (Lake serves his notice on two Washington insiders: "Among NIAC's advisory board members are former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, and John Limbert, a former U.S. hostage in Iran, was a board member until his recent appointment as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran.")
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard --- why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an "Iran" label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Times paraded an alleged exposé, "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules", of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing "questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law" and its warning to "prominent Washington figures" that they "could come to regret their ties to the group".
Neither length nor the article's placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack.
Lake's piece follows weeks of allegations by The Weekly Standard, that NIAC is beyond political acceptability. (Far from coincidentally, the magazine has been pursuing the same line with J Street, the Jewish activist group that often criticises Israeli policy.) The articles claims to rest on thousands of NIAC documents filed in a lawsuit that NIAC's Trita Parsi has brought against Hassan Daioleslam for defamation. Daioleslam, who provided the documents to The Standard and then to Lake, charged in 2007 that NIAC was lobbying for Iran.
Lake cites a total of two of those thousands of documents, both e-mails from Patrick Disney, NIAC's acting policy director. One looks for a campaign to challenge the Obama Administration's appointment of Dennis Ross to shape policy on Iran, and the other queries if NIAC might be acting as a lobby although it has not registered under the Lobby Disclosure Act. (It should be noted that Disney claims that he wrote the e-mail when he had just joined NIAC and from a position of little legal expertise and that Lake carries the rebuttal.)
And that's it, really. Instead of offering any further evidence, or indeed referring to the court's deliberations on the documents Lake asked "two former federal law-enforcement officials" --- former FBI associate deputy director Oliver "Buck" Revell and former FBI special agent in counterintelligence and counterterrorism Kenneth Piernick --- "to review documents from the case showing that Mr. Parsi had helped arrange meetings between members of Congress and [Iran Ambassador to the United States] Zarif". They offer Lake's dramatic flourish:
Arranging meetings between members of Congress and Iran's ambassador to the United Nations would in my opinion require that person or entity to register as an agent of a foreign power; in this case it would be Iran....It appears that this may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.
Now, Mr Lake might want to correct me on this, but he has just asked for a legal opinion from two people who are not lawyers but federal police officers. He might want to expand on why he put their reactions above the line which he then sneaks in: "Two lawyers who read some of the same documents said they did not provide enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Parsi was acting as a foreign agent." Instead of letting this sink in for the reader --- the only legal experts cited have just said that the charge is without foundation --- Lake simply runs to a new possibility: Parsi is using his NIAC position for financial benefit, for himself and/or Iranian associates such as Siamak Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour, who just spent four months in detention in Iran.
For this is an article resting on the bedrock of insinuation. Parsi, who claims to represents Iranian-Americans, is not an American but "a green card holder". NIAC lies when it claims to represent many Iranian-American, for it "had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer". Parsi, who has brought a lawsuit against someone for claiming he is an agent of Iran, still might be a foreign agent --- "Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and unofficial spokesman for Iran's opposition Green Movement, told The Times, 'I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic.'"
Let me be clear: I am not here to offer any judgement on the specifics of whether NIAC is a lobby --- if there is doubt, that is a matter for US federal authorities to determine. (It should be noted, however, that the salient issue is whether NIAC is a lobby, not whether it is a lobby acting on behalf of the Iranian Government --- that is another conflation in Lake's article.) I offer no judgement on the charges of improper financial and political behaviour by Trita Parsi; that is a matter for the court handling the defamation lawsuit --- NIAC's response to Lake emphasizes that the case is ongoing, as "the judge [has] denied [Daioleslam’s[ motion to dismiss the case on 18 out of 19 counts".
Instead, I ask: why now this campaign against NIAC by The Weekly Standard, now abetted by Mr Lake --- unsurprisingly, within hours of the article's appearance, the magazine was hailing the "blockbuster exposé"? What is it that is so threatening about its activities that it must be put out of action through allegations about its credibility and a "hands-off" notice to any politician, diplomat, or businessman who might choose to engage with it? (Lake serves his notice on two Washington insiders: "Among NIAC's advisory board members are former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, and John Limbert, a former U.S. hostage in Iran, was a board member until his recent appointment as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran.")
Reader Comments (18)
A review of interview with Titra Parsi the founder of NIAC in international media shows the obvious. While the world was witnessing the murder of peaceful demonstrators in streets of Iran Titra Parsi was telling Swedish media that Khamenie was not aware of what is going on. He as the founder of NIAC in every article was advocating for direct talks with Iran despite Ahmadinejad. It's only recently Titra Parsi mentions human rights issue, while still trying his best to establish the direct talks cause that's what Ahmandinejad's government needs more than anything to legitimize his position.
Before dismissing NIAC's lobbying position follow this man's articles and interviews with international media. Makhmalbaf is right of not recognizing him or NIAC as part of Green movement. When did they support the movement?
Gheseh2000,
Do you have a link to Parsi in Swedish media?
S.
Just a double-check --- here are three of Parsi's analyses in the weeks after the election:
16 June: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904989,00.html
28 June: http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/the-end-of-the-beginning/#more-2853
2 July: http://washingtonindependent.com/49565/trita-parsi-on-the-iranian-opposition-nothing-is-over
S.
Neoconservatives have always had beef with the realists. The only way they can beat them in an argument is to try and discredit them. They've been doing it with J Street. And now its NIACs turn. Hassan Dai I might add is a close associate of MEK. And they've long been championed by the neocons (http://www.alternet.org/world/65956/).
In order to push their own agenda (which is sanctions and/or war) they have to discredit the only powerful alternative voice in Washington. And they are the realists (NIAC and others).
Anyway, this is interesting:
---
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/13/does_washington_have_an_iran_lobby:
Reams of documents were provided to the Times by the defendant in NIAC's defamation lawsuit against Hassan Daioleslam, who they allege has links to identified terrorist groups, and who has been accusing NIAC of being too close to the Iranian government.
Previously unreported documents provided by NIAC to The Cable show that Daioleslam was working with neoconservative author Ken Timmerman as early as 2008 and that their moves on Parsi were part of a larger effort to thwart Obama's Iran policy.
"I strongly believe that Trita Parsi is the weakest part of the Iranian web because he is related to Siamak Namazi and Bob Ney," Daioleslam wrote in one e-mail dated April 2, 2008, "I believe that destroying him will be the start of attacking the whole web. This is an integral part of any attack on Clinton or Obama."
"Namazi is a fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy with whom Parsi has worked. The e-mails show that Parsi and Namazi coordinated efforts to make recommendations to administration officials.
Tim Kapshandy, a lawyer for Sidley Austin LLP, came to represent Daioleslam in 2009. Upon seeing the e-mails about Parsi and Namazi, he accidentally sent a note to both of them. The note read, "Send it to [Washington Times reporter Eli] Lake right away!"
"This is not as much targeting us, the end objective seems to be, according to these e-mails, to bring down Obama," Parsi said of the emails in an interview with The Cable."
----
Mr. Ghesheh, would you kindly provide a source/link for your Dai-like insinuation? More to the contrary, Trita & NIAC early on were quite prominent in their sharp criticisms of the Presidential elections and the aftermath. (the article grudgingly points that out) Likewise, Trita advocated a "tactical pause" arguing that negotiations with Iran should be delayed, so as not to grant a lifeline to A/N. Then they were pushing for the US to link the US-Iran-IAEA negotiations with human rights concerns....
I happened to disagree with both positions for multiple reasons (not least of which are the contending "clocks"), even as I understand why they were taken.
I have a working hunch that nothing would further "support" the cause of reform in Iran than a further ratcheting down of tensions between the US and Iran. (After all, it was the election of Obama, and the NoRuz speech in particular, that so electrified the Iranian electorate -- and undermined a previous campaign plank of A/N)
Ah, but to Dai, the MEK/PMOI, Eli Lake (formerly hatchet man for the NYSun) the neocons, et. al, anyone who argues for diplomacy, for working hard to resolve the difficult conflicts at hand, for struggling to build confidence and verification, is somehow a "lobbyist" for the regime.
Sam Stein posted an in-depth article on this subject in the Huffington Post back on 3 November, "NIAC And J Street, Progressive Foreign Policy Groups, Become Political Targets", which starts: "In the usually wonky world of non-profit issue-advocacy organizations, a decidedly political campaign has been waged against foreign policy institutions that promote diplomacy over militarism."
Apparently The Weekly Standard has been accusing the NIAC of being "an arm of the Iranian government, receiving funds from Iranian nationals, breaking lobbying regulations and acting to subvert U.S. foreign policy" since 2007!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/naic-and-j-street-progres_n_343008.html
This is unfortunately the usual problem with diasporas - they're much more vitriolic than the population inside the country (see Armenians, Cubans, Haitians, etc). There has been a running shmear against Trita Parsi for years, so much that you can't google his name without some kind of blood-soaked picture popping up of him photoshopped next to Khamene'i. The neocons use this stuff that the more vocal elements of the diaspora put out when it is in their interest, and obviously this attack on NIAC is very much in their interest. Eli Lake is a slime ball - his article should be read in journalism school as lesson one in how not to do a story. These guys are Leninist in their instrumental use of the truth.
Scott H,
I may be wrong, but my recollection is that Trita's line on a tactical pause was based more on Iran's foreign policy bureaucracy being in chaos and unable to negotiate on anything substantial. I'm sure Trita would not like to throw AN any lifelines either, but not sure that was his primary point.
p.s I'm developing a similar hunch (I have explored it on other threads here). An escalation of tensions on the nuclear issue is highly unlikley to bring any short or long term benefits to the opposition.
Chris Emery
Not Mr but Mrs, and I am not neoconservative as some of you think. I am neither a journalist nor a writer. I am just an Iranian resident of Sweden, as many Iranians exiled by this regime I just follow the news regarding my home land on daily bases.
If it's one issue I agree with NIAC regarding US, Iran relation is deployment of farther sanctions on Iran will help the Government not the opposition.
Having that said I just want you to follow Titra Parsi's Tweeter blogs.
Up to Sep. despite of what happened in streets of Iran he was for direct talks between Unite state and Iran. Aug 2009 he was asking for delay in decisions, Sep 2009 Human Rights issue.
Ask yourself Why wait so long? Why National Iranian American council took it's time to Join Iranians both inside and outside Iran?
I did send a request to Swedish radio for sending me the file from Interview they made with Mr Parsi, and I'll publish it into your site as soon as received.
Here is a link to one of his articles calling the end of beginning every Iranian called "the begining of End" : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/26/the_end_of_the_beginning
The first piece from Mr Parsi regarding Human rights issue came in Sept. 2009, when he finally realized the green movement is not ended.
See by yourself and point out to me if I am wrong but don't judge me as if I am for any sanctions or war against Iran. All I am saying is direct talk with Iran on higher level will only be the wind under the wings Ahmadinejad needs for the legitimacy of his government and that's what NIAC is striving to establish.
ChrisE's helpful comment about the "tactical pause" prompted me to check my files. A subtle distinction indeed should be made. See, for examples, TP's 07/30 essay in Foreign Policy, "The Case for a Tactical Pause"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/30/make_them_wait
and two weeks later, a co-written NYTimes oped, "Throwing a/n a Life-line"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/opinion/15iht-edaksari.html
The former advocates the "tactical pause" in negotiations, in the context of perceived decision-making uncertainty inside Iran. The second essay argues against new sanctions (rather than against diplomacy this time) -- as they would "throw A/N a lifeline."
In both cases, analysis is conditioned, if not directed, by focus on Iran's internal situation, and therein my own "pause."
In the latter, Trita too credits "Obama’s new outreach to Iran... depriv[ing] them [the hardliners] of their perennial boogeyman.
That dynamic is still at work....
Mr Ghesh - sorry, but you arguments make little Sense. You are trying to portray Parsi as if he only spoke out against human rights this past summer. Perhaps you should check out this page:
www.niacouncil.org/humanrights
NIAC organized a conference on human rights in 2007 together with Amnesty.
Then, there's an oped in 2005 (!) by Parsi in the Financial Times, arguing that the US must include human rights in any negotiation with Iran. 2005!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8a048db2-5ce5-11d9-bb9c-00000e2511c8,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F1%2F8a048db2-5ce5-11d9-bb9c-00000e2511c8.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tritaparsi.com%2Fpublications.htm
Care to apologize?
Mr Ghesh, I happen to be an Iranian and know well the type of Iranians that are "exiled" in Sweden. Let me tell you something point blank: you and try to drag Trita Parsi through the mud all you want with your false accusations, but we Iranians will NEVER EVER accept your darling Rajavi as our "president-elect". Vassalam. Give it up.
Scott,
Foreign Policy Magazine has the incredible back-story on this. They got ahold of documents that show this is really about attacking President Obama's Iran policy. Read this:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/13/does_washington_have_an_iran_lobby
From Tabnak, a publication close to Rezaei / the IRGC:
پرنفوذترین لابی ایرانی! به دلیل تخلفات، زیر تيغ تحقیقات فدرال آمریکا
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=72769
(funny -- not to mention ironic -- that those close to the regime ALSO label NIAC a "lobby." not the first time we've seen the american far-right and the iranian far-right come to resemble each other, i have to say...)
Masoud - I don't read farsi, but your point is very good. Because the lawsuit is clearly not about whether NIAC is a lobby or not. The neo-cons are trying to make teat the issue. The issue is whether NIAC lobbies for the Islamic republic - and the neo-cons are very clear: If you oppose war and additional sanctions, then you are with "them"!
There indeed is another related irony here -- the Wash Times does note that NIAC has received considerable funding from Soros's foundation. (which is openly noted on the NIAC web site in various places -- but not the amounts) In the recent show trials, much was made of links to various defendants to the very same foundation -- e.g., that they were trying to foment "velvet revolution."
So NIAC might easily be accused -- by neocons in Iran of being part of some vast "velvet conspiracy."
And likewise, US & Israeli neocons (as well as the Mooj stooges like Daioleslam)
accuse Parsi & NIAC of being part of a Mullah conspiracy.
Two other angles:
1. It dawns on me that there's another neocon agenda at work here -- the effort to embarrass John Limbert, the new top man for Iran at the State Department. (an infinitely better choice than Dennis Ross -- who was unwelcome to Iranians of nearly all stripes -- except of course the monarchist crowd)
2. I'm saddened for Barbara Slavin in all this. For a decade or more, she was an excellent, independent reporter on Iran matters for USA Today. A lot of us were startled when she took an editing role at Washington Times (long know for being... very "conservative").... Yet much of the reporting on Iran during her watch at WashTimes has been quite good. (at times better & scooping the WaPost)
I gather she recused herself from this story, as Parsi is a friend of hers. But what the heck is Eli Lake, top neocon attack dog from the NYSun, doing at the WashTimes (a Mooney owned paper)? Working theory -- he was brought in to "balance" Barbara. Wonder how long she'll last there now....
It t'would appear that Daniel Luban of the splendid "faster times" spoof blog (of Michael Ledeen) reads enduring America.... (see post #16 above)
http://thefastertimes.com/diplomacy/2009/11/16/why-everyone-hates-george-soros/
Either that, or great minds think alike: :-}
"So for the neocons, Soros is an Iranian stooge; for the Ahmadinejad regime, he is an American stooge. The man just can’t win."