Happy New Year! Ein frohes neues Jahr ! Bonne Année! سال نو میلادی مبارک

Happy New Year!

Ein frohes neues Jahr!

Bonne Année!

سال نو میلادی مبارک

A new public opinion survey of the Iranian Americans

Survey of Iranian-Americans

The Progressive American and Iranian Committee (PAIC)
http://www.iranian-americans.com/2008/12/596.html

A new public opinion survey of the Iranian Americans has been released recently. The survey was commissioned by the newly founded organization, the Public Affairs of Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) to Zogby International.

While there are some reservations about the limited number of people surveyed (only 401) and the formulation of questions, we should however welcome the results as the Iranian-Americans have in large numbers pointed to the roots of their concerns. The results show in a clear way that the Iranian-Americans concerns are directly caused by the Iranian regime.

“When asked to name the two most important from a list of six issues relating to U.S.-Iran relations, seventy percent (70%) of Iranian Americans surveyed cite the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran as the most important.

An overwhelming eighty-five percent (85%) of Iranian Americans believe it is important to facilitate greater understanding between the peoples of the United States and Iran. Also a significant number of Iranian Americans (75%) believe it is important to ensure that the image of Iranian Americans in the U.S. accurately reflects their values and accomplishment.”

It is well understood that the Iranian and American people’s mutual understanding has been only affected by the Iranian regime’s policies, barbarism in the country and sponsorship of terrorism in foreign policy. Thirty years of anti-American policies by the Islamic regime accompanied by killings of Americans, burning of American flag and active support to the anti-American terrorist groups have caused mistrust and misunderstanding among the American peoples in regard to our community. There would be absolutely no misunderstanding between the two peoples if we remove the Islamic regime factor.

This element is more obvious in the answer to another question: “Nearly half of Iranian Americans surveyed (47%) have themselves experienced or personally know another Iranian American who has experienced discrimination because of their ethnicity or country of origin.”

One of the most respected people in the world; the Iranians have turned to prime suspects of wrongdoings only because of the Tehran’s regime. Now, the Iranians are subjected to discrimination in their daily lives in almost every country. This unfair treatment is more unbearable in America, where a son of an immigrant, a son of an African, a son of a Muslim is elected as president. In the US, people from all around the world live together peacefully without systematic discrimination that the Iranians have been experiencing for the past 30 years.

The answers to another question leave no doubt about the disastrous impact of the Islamic regime on the daily life of Iranians abroad: “75% believe it is important to ensure that the image of Iranian Americans in the U.S. accurately reflects their values and accomplishment.”

No doubt that the Iranian-Americans’ image has been damaged mainly by the Iranian regime’s anti-human behaviors. The peaceful inheritors of Cyrus the great are being wrongly identified with a regime that in 21st century stones the women, cuts the limbs, pull outs the eyes and has turned a whole country to a Middle Age prison.

The Zogby poll illustrates in a clear and unequivocal manner that addressing the real concerns of Iranian-Americans starts with condemning this regime and crying loud that the barbaric regime does not represent our community. Those who try to ignore this basic fact are only harming the Iranians leaving abroad.

The Progressive American and Iranian Committee (PAIC) has been precisely founded to defend the interest of our community. We are a group of Iranian-Americans of diverse political views who share the same aspirations; the establishment of a democratic and secular system in Iran. Inevitably, this includes defending our Iranian heritage and helping our compatriots in Iran in their struggle against the Islamic Republic. We also aim to demonstrate that the ordinary freedom loving people of Iran should not be mistaken with the detested ruling theocracy in Tehran. Furthermore, PAIC strives to build an everlasting friendship between the peoples of Iran and America.

شکر خوردن های زیادی عمله جات تنگ چشمِ و دهن دریده و وقیح "بالاترین (!)" بسیج اینترنتی تبلیغات انتخوابات (!) و قانون (!) اساسی حکومت آخوندی

با سپاس از لینک آباد مستقل
دنباله

که به مقاله آقای جواد اسدیان لینک داده است
و این "توضیحات" دگر باره ولازم از زیر چتر چل تیکه
http://zir-chatr-40tikke.blogspot.com/2008/12/blog-post_17.html...
.........................................................

شکر خوردن های زیادی عمله جات تنگ چشمِ
و دهن دریده و وقیح "بالاترین (!)" بسیج اینترنتی تبلیغات انتخوابات (!) و قانون (!) اساسی حکومت آخوندی

http://balatarin.com/permlink/2008/12/17/1477386#comments

حدود ۲ ساعت قبل گفت

تکراری عزیز جان..

از اون سایت که دوستمون ارسال نموده سایت کپی کاری است و مستحق منفی نقض کپی رایت که حتی بالاترین هم ارسال لینک از ان سایت راممنوع نموده است اما این که من ارسال نموده ام از وبلاگ خود نویسنده میباشد

برای نظر دادن وارد شوید یا اگر ثبت‌نام نکردید، ثبت‌نام کنید

ba dorood be ramin aziz,
yadashti barayat mifrestam dar bareye motahari. khahesh mikonam agar tavanesti baraye tarnamahaye dostan ham befrest.
ghorbanat,
javad.

Javad Asadian
Wed, 17. Dec 2008 12:50:42 +0000

...................

آخوند مطهری تنگ چشمِ دهن دریده و وقیح
تا توانست بر فردوسی تاخت و تلاش بسیار هم کرد که حافظ را ملاخور کند

یادداشتی کوتاه بر بیهوده گویی های مطهری
در باره فردوسی و فرهنگ ایرانی

جواد اسدیان

آخوند مطهری به هرآنچه رنگ و نشانی از ایران و ایرانی داشت، نفرت می ورزید، بسان دیگر آخوند های ریز و درشت. نامربوط های او را در بارۀ شاملو و حافظ خوانده بودم و امروز که به سخنان وی می اندیشم، سخت در شگفتم که چرا در همان روزگار کسی پیدا نشد بر این بیهوده گویی ها خرده ای بگیرد! پسینتر بر من روشن شد که روشنفکر چپ، آخوند را در مبارزه با "سرمایه داری و امپریالیسم" همراه و همرای و در جبهۀ خود می پنداشت؛ همچنانکه کم و بیش می پندارد و روشنفکر راست که دستگاه دولتی را نیز در دست داشت، آخوند را کم و بیش موجود مفیدی می انگاشت که می تواند در نفی اندیشه های سوسیالیستی، بر ماتریالیسم دیالکتیک آبکی، ردیه های آبکی تقریر کند. آنان غافل بودند که آخوندِ مسلمان، سری بر تن روشنفکر چپ و راست نمی خواهد.

در تارنمای " ایران ب.ب.ب" بخشی از نوشته های پریشان این شیخ ایران ستیز را در بارۀ فردوسی بزرگ دیدم که از هزار و چند سد سال پیش، خواب از چشم این عربزدگان ربوده است. این آخوند تنگ چشمِ دهن دریده و وقیح در کتابی با عنوان "نور ملکوت قرآن" می گوید: " فردوسی‌ با شاهنامۀ افسانه‌ای‌ خود كه‌ كتاب‌ شعر (يعني‌ تخيّلات‌ و پندارهايی شاعرانه‌) است‌ خواست‌ باطلی‌ را در مقابل‌ قرآن‌ عَلم‌ كند؛ و موهومی‌ را در برابر يقين‌ بر سر پا دارد. خداوند وی‌ را به‌ جزای‌ خودش‌ در دنيا رسانيد، و از عاقبتش‌ در آخرت‌ خبر نداريم‌."

فردوسی با شاهنامه اش توانست منش ایرانی را از دستبرد اسلام پاس بدارد و چیستی و کیستی ما ایرانیان که در حوزۀ نفوذ اسلام، تافته ای جدابافته است، بی تردید وامدار کار سترگ اوست. بعدها بود که نظامی عروضی بر فردوسی دروغی بزرگ بست که وی، شاهنامه را برای مقداری صله سروده که گویا قرار بوده است محمود غزنوی بپردازد. این جعل تاریخی تا کنون همچنان تکرار می شود؛ حال آنکه نه محمود را با ابوالقاسم فردوسی کار ی بود و نه فردوسی را با او نسبتی و نزدیکی. این شیخ هم همان ترهات را نشخوار می کند، اما نه برای پرتو افکنی بر زاویه های تاریک تاریخ، بلکه برای دشنام گویی به فرهنگ ایران و ایرانی و تحریف وقیحانۀ بزرگان این سرزمین.

محمد تقی بهار که از خشم آخوند مسلمان و از دیدگاه کین توزانۀ او به شاهنامه و فردوسی آگاهی داشت، پیشاپیش تکلیف آخوندهایی مانند مطهری را که جانِ سخن را آلوده اند، تعیین کرده است. به سرودۀ بهار توجه کنید تا بتوانید نسبت آن را با نوشته های این آخوند ایرانی ستیز، بسنجید:

عیب بر شهنامه و گوینده اش هرگز نکرد
جز کسی کش نیست عقل از وَسنتِ نقصان بری
هم از بهار است که می گوید:
شاهنامه هست بی اغراق قرآن عجم
رتبۀ دانای توسی رتبۀ پیغمبری ست

مطهری تا توانست بر فردوسی تاخت و تلاش بسیار هم کرد که حافظ را ملاخور کند؛ به معنای دقیق این مفهوم. برادر دیگر این آخوند که انقلاب فرهنگی و بستن دانشگاه های یک کشور از دستاوردهای ننگین اوست، کوشش کرده و می کند که نه تنها حافظ را ملاخور کند، بلکه مولوی را نیز در باتلاق تفکر اسلامی از معنا خالی کند.

مولوی می گوید که مثنوی دارای پوسته ای است و دارای هسته ای. سروش به این پوستۀ اسلامی که برای عوام است، چنگ انداخته تا تمام اندیشۀ مولوی که از اندیشه و فرهنگ ایرانی سیراب شده است، در پرده بماند و در پردۀ پندار بپوسد. مولوی در بارۀ عطار نیشابوری می گوید:

هفت شهر عشق را عطار گشت
ما هنوز اندر خم یک کوچه ایم

و یکی از شهر عشق ، شهری است که عطار در آن به بانگ بلند، اعلام می کند:

مسلمانان من آن گبرم که دین را خوار می دارم
مسلمانم همی خوانند و من زنار می دارم
ببستم خانقه را در، در میخانه بگشودم
ز می من فخر می گیرم ز مسجد عار می دارم

همۀ اسلام ستیزی عطار در اثبات این امر است که هستۀ هستی و بودِ انسان، ورای کفر و دین و برداشت های انسان ستیزانۀ اسلامی ست؛ یعنی همانی که مولوی در باب انسان خداییِ انسان می گوید:

پس به صورت عالم اصغر تویی
پس بـــه معنــی عـالم اکبـر تویی

کفر و دین مرکز هستی و هستانه نیست. گوهر انسان و وجود اوست که باید مورد توجه قرار بگیرد و از آرایه ها و پیرایه های اسلامی پالوده شود.

امید که روشنفکران سکولار با هر دیدگاه و با باور به هر ایدئولوژی انسانی و خردپذیر، ببینند که آخوند برای نابودی ایران و ایرانی عزمش را جزم کرده است. نمی توان و نمی باید که چشم و دل را بست و آسوده بر کناری رفت. امروز، بخش بزرگ جامعۀ شهری به دنبال منش گم کردۀ خود است و دریافته است، آخوند آنرا از وی ربوده و در پی نابودی تمام عیار آن است. اینک گنجینۀ فرهنگ ایران از هر زمان دیگر در برابر دیدگان ماست. آنرا ببینیم و دریابیم.

j-asadian@web.de

Iranian blood transfusion

Iranian blood transfusion

IRANIAN WOMAN

http://zaneirani.blogspot.com/
زن ايـرانـی

I received this document in a mass e-mail. It shows in the case of IRI’s revolutionary guards they didn’t receive blood transfusion from the blood bank. The political prisoners who were to be executed had to undergo the blood collection. A catheter would be inserted into their vein and their blood was collected for transfusion.

An Iranian Cinderella man in Washington

An Iranian Cinderella man in Washington

Twelve years of pro-Tehran lobby

American Chronicle

Hassan Daioleslam

Progressive American-Iranian Committee

A few weeks ago, on November 18th, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) held a conference in the Hart Senate building. A group of lawmakers, former diplomats and Iran experts gathered to indirectly advise the President elect Obama on how to deal with Iran. Or, how to reduce the pressure off the Iranian regime and augment the incentives.1 The moderator of the event was Trita Parsi, the president of NIAC.

In the process of preparing for the meeting a group of 21 self-proclaimed foreign policy “experts” issued a report2 titled “Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran” which according to them was “the product of a large group of experts with diverse knowledge, experience and affiliations.” Surprisingly, the lion’s share of this report was published one year ago by Trita Parsi as the sole author.3

It is hard to explain how an old report is being recycled by such a prominent group of “Iran experts” and presented as a hot-out-of-oven roadmap for the new President. This puzzling “coincidence” is yet another loop in a chain of coincidental events that has made Trita Parsi the leading light of some influential Iran related circles in Washington. A few more examples of the windfall of divine fortune for Mr. Parsi are listed below.

In 1997, Parsi, a young student living in Sweden, decided to found a small lobby group and combat the US economic sanctions against Iran.4 In his early 20s, he became advisor to Bob Ney, an influential Republican congressman from Ohio.5 This collaboration lasted 10 years until Ney was sent to prison on corruption-related charges (some related to accepting bribes to create loopholes for Iran to buy American aircrafts).6

In 2001, Parsi came to the US and within a few months became the Director of development in the American Iranian Council (AIC).7 This powerful organization was advocating improved relation with the Iranian regime. AIC’s board of directors included a former undersecretary of State, U.S. Senators, Iran experts and representatives of major US oil corporations.8 For a young Iranian who had freshly arrived in Washington, it was quite a success.

Parsi did not stop here. He decided to found his own organization in 2002 and set up the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).5&7 Here too, the success story is amazing. He inspired so much confidence that less than a month after NIAC was founded, the National Endowment for Democracy gave him a grant. Normally, it takes at least 2 month for NED just to process a grant application, but here the whole process was accomplished in record time. Over the next few years, NED granted him about 200.000$.9

His new organization needed help. Again, the best professionals came to Parsi’s rescue. A few months after NIAC was founded, 2 of the best Washington lobbyists, Roy Coffee and David Destefano held a lobbying session in a restaurant for a few NIAC’s members.10

According to his official bio, Coffee “was Deputy Campaign Manager for George W. Bush in his successful 1994 race for Governor against incumbent Ann Richards. He then served as the Director of State-Federal Relations in the Governor’s office for four years.”11

In 2003, the Iranian regime decided to send a secret offer of “Grand Bargain” to US. The Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tom Guldiman and an Iranian official wrote the proposal. This affaire was so secret that according to Guldiman; only 4 people were informed in Iran.12 Guldiman wrote:

“Kharazi told me that he had two long discussions with the Leader on the roadmap. In those meetings which both lasted two hours, only president Khatami and foreign minister Kamal Kharazi were present. The question is dealt with in high secrecy. Therefore no one else has been informed.”

But, Guldiman came to Washington and went to Bob Ney’s office and gave him a copy and asked him to send it to the White House. Parsi told the Democracy Now journalist that: “I was an advisor to Bob Ney at the time. And Tim met with Bob and handed over the proposal to him. And Bob afterwards sent it to be hand-delivered to the White House to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove called back within two hours, and they had a brief discussion about the proposal.”13

According to the media, Parsi was personally involved in this dealing “Parsi admitted that he was the point person for Ney in helping to manage this issue.” Wrote Steve Clemons.14 This was an extraordinary privilege. While the Iranian parliament, the Revolutionary Guards, National Security Council, Rafsanjani and … were not informed about such a historic initiative, Parsi was the fifth Iranian to be involved.

This exceptional trust was repeated three years later, in 2006, when the situation was worsening for the regime of Tehran. Parsi was once again given a new copy of the 2003 offer and he gave it to the press. No one before him had ever gone public about this affaire, not even in Tehran. Gareth Porter wrote in IPS that: “Parsi, who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.” 15

This Iranian regime’s trust toward Parsi is so important that on September 19, 2006, ambassador Faramarze Fathnejad , the former head of the Iran Interest section in Washington, went back to Tehran and personally promoted Parsi’s position. He met with a semi-governmental organization and underlined “the importance of relation with Iranian organizations in the U.S. and specially pointed to NIAC and his young leader who is a consultant to CNN and has been very successful in his efforts”16

I was personally unaware of such favorable attitude from Tehran toward Parsi till April 2007 when I wrote my first article about him and NIAC. I did not expect that several government related newspapers would come to defend Parsi and attack me. One of them called NIAC the “Iranian lobby in Washington”.17

When in 2006 Parsi defended his doctorate, he was assisted by highest US politicians and visionaries. He wrote his Doctoral thesis on US-Israeli-Iranian relations under Professor Francis Fukuyama and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security advisor.18

In 2007, Parsi published his only book, Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007). The success was again immediate. He was the 2008 Silver Medal Recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award.19

In 2008, when US Congress was showing some teeth to the Iranian regime, a number of groups (Peace organizations, Moslem association, Iran experts and former politicians) and individuals came together and founded the “Campaign for new American Policy on Iran”.20 Their campaign was especially intense to fight against the H.R. 362, an advisory resolution which was asking more sanctions on Iran. This resolution which enjoyed a large number of sponsors was finally shelved by the Congress. Again, NIAC and Parsi were on top of this event. According to Sasan Dehghan, a NIAC’s prominent member, his group led the lobby efforts. In an epical tone, he compares NIAC to “David” and portrays the Israeli lobby as “Goliath”:21

“NIAC beats AIPAC

It was David versus Goliath: the classic underdog match up. In the battle over a Congressional resolution calling for war with Iran, the lines were drawn between the smaller grassroots Iranian-American movement (NIAC) on one side and the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) mega-lobby on the other…

Led by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and a coalition of peace and security groups, Iranian Americans from around the country called, emailed, wrote, and visited their members of Congress…

In the end, the bill was never allowed to be brought up for a vote on the House floor, nor was it even considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, thanks to groups like NIAC working behind the scenes with members of Congress to discourage consideration of the bill.”

Here we are. 12 years of exceptional success. Trusted in Tehran and Washington. For my part, I attribute his achievement to the fact that both the Iranian regime and some influential US business interests have found a common ground: combating American sanctions on Iran. Parsi grew in such a fertile land.

He started his career in 1997 when these business interests started their campaign against the sanctions. This campaign needed an “Iranian” touch, an “Iranian” presence. 3 organizations (including Parsi’s IIC) were created and the AIC (mentioned earlier) was the biggest one. AIC was mainly funded by Oil corporations.22 In 1998, Associated Press reporter Josef Federman reported on these new Iranian groups and wrote that:23

“Gary Marfin, Conoco’s manager for government affairs, said the company’s alliance with Iranian-Americans is part of its general opposition to economic sanctions. Another group, Iranians for International Cooperation, seeks to promote dialogue, cultural exchanges and economic ties between Iran and America. Trita Parsi, a graduate student leads the group from Sweden.”

In 2001, this campaign was intensified to beat the Iran Libya Sanction Act (ILSA). Peter H. Stone worte in National Journal that:24

“Red Cavaney, the president of the American Petroleum Institute and his allies are in the midst of a lobbying campaign aimed at persuading members of Congress and Administration officials to relax sanctions against investments in Iran and. Oil behemoths such as Chevron Corp., Conoco, ExxonMobil Corp., and Phillips Petroleum Co. have been working aggressively alongside big business coalitions, such as USA*Engage, a group of 670 U.S. companies, to fight unilateral sanctions…..

For extra help on the issue, oil companies are also banking on a grassroots organization of Iranian-Americans to lend a hand.”

Parsi’s merit has been to outperform the 2 other “Iranian” organizations and monopolize the favorable attentions. Recently, the Iranian regime controlled newspaper Aftab published an interview with Trita Parsi and in the introduction, the editor wrote about the creation of these “Iranian” groups in Washington:25

“Houshang Amirahmadi founded his council, The American Iranian Council (AIC) in 1997. In 2001, Trita Parsi, as a young Iranian Swedish came to the U.S. and joined AIC as the managing director. In 2002, he [Parsi] with the support of the Congressman Bob Nay started a new organization called NIAC (National Iranian American Council). Since then Parsi has been able to achieve a superior status than Amirahmadi.”

I believe the streak of Trita Parsi´s success has not come without cost. From my view, the cost has been added confusion in the US policy towards Iran, a climate of misinformation and misrepresentation of Iran related facts in the US congress, and empowerment of a web of Iranian influence in America. This in turn has meant more suffering for the Iranian people, higher casualties for the American forces in the region, .and the scary prospect of the nuclear mullahs.

Notes:

1- http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1279&Itemid=29

2- See the report at http://americanforeignpolicy.org/.

3- See Parsi’s report at http://www.niacouncil.org/images/PDF_files/seven%20myths%20about%20iran.pdf

I compared the two reports at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/81956

4- Parsi’s first statement at: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3725/trita.html

5- See parsi’e resume at http://web.archive.org/web/20011120204601/www.geocities.com/tritaparsi/resume.html

6- DoJ’s plea agreement with Bob Ney http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/September/06_crm_622.html

7- In addition to his resume, you can also read Parsi’s Bio at http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/May/Group/

8- AIC’s board: http://www.american-iranian.org/home.php?mains=2&subs=14

9- Read my article about NED’s grants to NIAC at (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/65425 )

10- See the 2 following links A:http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=2

B:http://web.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/2002/msg00572.html

11- Coffee’s bio at: http://www.lockelord.com/rcoffee/

12- A copy of Iranian offer and Guldiman’s memo is published by Washington Post: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_roadmap.pdf

For a comprehensive study of this affaire, read my article: 2003 Grand Bargain, Secrets, Lies and Manipulation at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/18/iran%e2%80%99s-2003-grand-bargain-offer-secrets-lies-and-manipulation/

13- Trita Parsi’s interview with Democracy Now, Feb. 26, 2007:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/26/ex_congressional_aide_karl_rove_personally

14- Steve Clemons, Feb. 17, 2007: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/what-did-rove-do-with-200_b_41472.html

15- Gareth Porter, IPS, May 24, 2006 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm

16- http://www.topiranian.com/ngo/archives/009103.html

17- See the six following Iranian regime controlled newspapers:

http://www.qudsdaily.com/archive/1386/html/2/1386-02-01/page61.html

http://www.alef.ir/content/view/7756/

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8601280492

http://www.emammahdi.com/news/watr.asp?sys=110&subof=1&bakhsh=8&NewsID=857

http://old.tebyan.net/teb.aspx?nId=28205

http://www.javannewspaper.com/1386/860130/world.htm

18- http://www.tritaparsi.com/biography.htm. To see the photos, go to http://www.tritaparsi.com/photos.htm photos 12 & 13

19- http://www.tritaparsi.com/biography.htm

20- http://www.newiranpolicy.org/401.html

21- (http://www.iranian.com/main/2008/niac-beats-aipac

22- See AIC’s document http://www.american-iranian.org/aboutus/growthplan.pdf

23- http://www.iraniantrade.org/publications/pdetails.asp?ID=32

24- http://www.iraniantrade.org/publications/pdetails.asp?ID=49

25- Aftab, August 5, 2008 http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcc10q2b0q4m.html

A Few Simple Shots / Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

"A Few Simple Shots"

Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

Filmmaker

Jamshid Akrami

..................

(full length movie)

PAIC welcome’s OFAC’s decision to broaden sanctions against the Iranian regime

PAIC welcome’s OFAC’s decision
to broaden sanctions
against the Iranian regime


On November 26, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added three new entities to its non-exhaustive list of companies controlled by the Iranian Government.

The newly identified companies to be added to OFAC’s appendix are: National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran Intertrade Company Ltd., and Naftiran Intertrade Co. Sarl.

Therefore, American corporations will be prohibited to deal with Iran’s oil companies as well as other Iranian financial institutions already listed in the appendix.

This latest move takes the U.S. sanctions on the Iranian Government to broader levels. The immediate reactions by Tehran regime’s media show the significance of this new initiative on the Iranian Regime. “Tabnak”, a website belonging to the former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, wrote:” The recent policy taken by the U.S. Government is designed to pressuring Iranian owned companies and some specific trading activities.” December 3, 2008.

Also, “Jomhouri Eslami” a newspaper connected to Khamenei, the Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader, wrote: “U.S. is extending its sanction to all aspects of Iran’s financial and trading activities. Their intention is to create obstacles for Iran’s economy.” December 4, 2008.

The Progressive American-Iranian Committee (PAIC) unequivocally supports OFAC’s latest move as a practical step towards wider and more effective sanctions against Tehran’s regime.

Progressive American-Iranian Committee (PAIC)

http://www.iranian-americans.com/
December 4, 2008

Selling an Iranian Mirage Again

Selling an Iranian Mirage Again

A new report by Maloney-Takeyh

Hassan Daioleslam

http://www.iranian-americans.com/


Two of the U.S. Think-Tanks (the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution) have collaborated to prepare an advisory report on the American policy in the Middle East. This report titled, “Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President”1 is meant to advise President-Elect Obama on how to deal with the complex issues of the Middle East. The third chapter of the report (34 pages) is on Iran, “Pathway to Coexistence: A New U.S. Policy toward Iran”.2 Suzanne Maloney and Ray Takeyh (Maloney’s husband) have co-authored this chapter.

For those familiar with the Iran related circles in Washington, knowing the authors (i.e. Maloney and Takeyh) is enough to know the contents of their recommendations on Iran. The authors belong to a group of “Iran experts” who for the past 12 years have tirelessly advocated a friendly policy toward Tehran rulers. Dr. Takeyh, a senior fellow at CFR,3 has testified frequently at various congressional committees and has appeared in numerous media venues. Prior to early 2000s, he was an ardent opponent of engagement with Iran. However, he astonishingly turned overnight into a strong advocate of rapprochement policy.

Takeyh’s wife, Susan Maloney, was until last year an Iran policy planner staff in the State Department.4 Unfortunately, in her advisory reports for directing the future American policy; she has failed to disclose her collaboration with the Oil industry. It is well understood that US oil corporations have been the most vibrant advocates of removing all sanctions against the Iranian regime.

American foreign policy on Iran has been amalgamated with confusion and indecision. The price of this confusion has been American blood and prolonged suffering of Iranian and Iraqi people. The so called “Iran Experts” have shaped this confusion and misinformation disarray.

I will examine the new report by the husband and wife in two parts. First, in this paper, we will re-examine how Takeyh, Maloney and their peers have in past misrepresented the Iranian situation and tried to evasively influence US policy toward Iran. By examining their past works, we can better understand the tactics used by these “Iran experts”, and therefore better appreciate the timing and the goals of the recent report.

In the second part I will analyze in details, the report “Pathway to Coexistence: A New U.S. Policy toward Iran”, its timing and its message. We will see how they have re-wrapped the same old message in a new package. The report’s message is simple: The Iranian regime is strong and stable. It poses no danger to the strategic interests of the U.S. and its allies. Therefore tolerate, co-exist, and share the region with the mullahs.

I have been very careful not to take quotes out of context. Nevertheless, I urge the readers to refer to the original articles and read them for themselves.

Part I: A History of Wavering and Disingenuous Political Prophesy

2000-2001: Takeyh was zealously against engagement with Mullahs

Prior to joining the pro-Iranian circles and CFR, Takeyh presented a totally different view of the Iranian regime. Even under Khatami’s rule and the peak of power of the “reformist” circles in Iran, Takeyh was adamantly against rapprochement based strategies towards Iran. He totally denied the concept of “moderates” in Tehran. In April 2000, in an article titled “Pragmatic theocracy: A contradiction in terms?” ridiculing the pro engagement circles, Takeyh wrote:

” … And this is where a strategy of accommodation falters. For no degree of internal liberalization is likely to alter this fundamental clash of interests. Khatemi may have discarded the Khomeini regime’s intemperate rhetoric and inflammatory strategy, but he has remained loyal to its hegemonic aspirations. A more pragmatic Iran, then, is likely to offer the United States only slightly less of a challenge than its revolutionary opposition movement claiming that only a return to religious values can fulfill the masses’ demands for economic and political regeneration.”5

At that time, Takeyh was categorically against any carrots given to the Iranian regime. He advised the United States to maintain a harsh stance against the clerical rule which according to him “is relentlessly complotting against the United States“:

“If Washington wants Tehran to conform to international rules of conduct, it will have to maintain a robust regional presence and conduct a determined effort against Iran’s terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. … If the U.S. is not prepared to allow Iranian hegemony over much of the Middle East, U.S.-Iranian relations will continue to be marked by confrontation, even when both states appear to share certain interests. In essence, the Clinton-Albright approach - offering concessions as a means of generating dialogue - failed to appreciate that the U.S. and Iran simply have different plans for the region”. 6

2002: Takeyh was Pro-war with Iraq

There is a perception that these pro-Iran circles are genuinely peace-loving scholars that are trying to avoid another war. Nothing could be farther from truth. Parallel to the efforts of Iran’s proxies such as Ahmad Chalaby in beating the drum of war, or Bob Ney’s charade of “freedom fries”, Takeyh and many other scholars advocated regime change in Iraq as a tradition of spreading freedom. At the onset of US conflict in Iraq in 2002, Takeyh wrote:

“Beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s call for “empire of liberties,” American statesmen have long propounded a vision of a global civilization predicated on liberal democracy and market economics. …. In contrast to the European focus on the external behavior of states as opposed to their internal composition, American internationalists have long argued that the domestic character of a state is the most predictable barometer of its external conduct. U.S. President George W. Bush’s emphasis on regime change and the promotion of democracy as the primary mean s of ensuring American security, at the expense of deterrence, containment, and the balance of power, is well in keeping with that outlook.” 7

Then, Takeyh started a new career with the pro-Iranian regime circles and experienced a sudden intellectual enlightenment that turned him to a resolute and tenacious advocate of engagement.

Best Time for a Deal with the Mullahs

A common goal for the Iranian regime and the US business interests that support the pro-Iranian lobby, has always been to avoid harsh and coercive measures against the clerical rule. In order to justify this approach, they have publicized the idea that the regime in Tehran is at all times ready to talk and make a deal with the United States.

Regardless of the time, situation or who is in power in Iran, Takeyh and cohorts maintained that it is a unique time to deal with Iran. Followings are a few such sample declarations over the years.

2000 (Khatami’s presidency and peak of the power of reformists): “We get a better deal on all issues of concern, the holy trinity - weapons, terrorism, and Israel - from the reformers, who are more pragmatists than the hard-liners.” 8

2002: “This time, with public opinion in favor of reaching out to Washington, Iranian political groups of all complexion are loath to let the opportunity pass.” 9

2004 (Defeat of reformers and rise of radical faction): “The recent demise of the reform movement has facilitated the ascendance of pragmatic conservatives willing to have a far-reaching dialogue with the United States. At a time when the challenge of Iran seems most acute, the prospect of Tehran accommodating Washington has never been greater.” 10

2004: “For the first time in more than 20 years, the United States has the opportunity to deal with rational, pragmatic interlocutors who, by virtue of their standing in the government, are in a position to negotiate. It is an opportunity that should not be squandered.” 11

2005 (The radical fundamentalists gain power. Ahmadinejd is elected as the president): “Despite the election of a hard-line government in Iran, the time surprisingly might be ripe for a deal.” 12

2007: “In Iran today the idea of negotiating with the United States as late as 1999, 2001, was a contentious issue. Now there is a consensus in Iran, across political spectrum, blessed by the supreme leader, that Iran is willing to negotiate with the United States.” 13

It is interesting to see how under very different situations, and cast of characters in power in Iran, Takeyh manages to arrive at the same conclusion. In order to justify these declarations, Takeyh and other pro-ayatollahs analysts have continiously misrepresented the realities of power structure in Iran. To convince the decision makers in the US to engage Iran and avoide harsh policies against the ayatollahs, Ray Takeyh and friends had to ascertain that a pragmatic faction in Tehran controls the situation. To do so, these scholars have demonstrated a very creative imagination.

Let’s focus on the last 12 years and examine the events in Iran and the corresponding proclamations of CFR and Takeyh.

1997-2004: Reform is concretely irreversible

The victory of Mohammad Khatami in the presidential election of 1997, created an ideal political environment for the American business interests to embark on a new aggressive lobby against the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. The anti-sanctions drive was initiated by the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC). In early 1997, the USA*Engage, NFTC’s lobbying arm, officially started its activities.

Armed with such an impressive armada, the pro-engagement circles tried to represent the reformer’s victory as rock solid and irreversible, hence a unique opportunity for the United States to change its policy toward Iran.

Robin Wright wrote:

· “The (2000 parliamentary) election may also have marked the onset of recovery - a revolution’s third and final phase”. 14

· “The impact of political change in Iran could be sweeping for the more than 50 nations of the Islamic world.” 15

· “Like the world around it, Iran is still undergoing a profound transformation… Gradually, the government of God is being forced to cede to secular statecraft — and to empower Iranians. In the process, Iran has begun contributing to the spread of public empowerment around the world.” 16

Suzanne Maloney was also very clear on the irreversibility of the reform movement:

“For the foreseeable future, then, the Islamic Republic will continue to be buffeted by the forces of divisiveness and unresolved questions of authority. Nonetheless, the February elections provide powerful evidence that the system is evolving in an irreversibly democratic fashion”. 17

Takeyh was even more affirmative, He wrote that the reformers will soon capture the judiciary and even the Supreme Leader’s absolute authority would be diminshed :

“The next institution that is likely to fall in the hands of the reformers is the judiciary… The anticipated reform of the court system will further diminish the conservatives’ power base…In the coming decade it is likely that the position of the leader will undergo transformations as its absolutism is widely challenged within both clerical and secular circles.” 18

“Despite sporadic setbacks, Khatami and his reform supporters are forging new paths and transforming politics into a meaningful representative practice … A politicized middle class, restive youth and an emboldened civil society make the recession of conservative power inevitable.” 19

Takeyh, like Robin Wright was asserting that the reform movement is the Iranian regime’s last chance of survival.

“Should the hardliners succeed in completely obstructing reform, Iran may not see a revolution similar to the 1979 mass uprising, but rather a state that increasingly resembles the Soviet Union of the 1970s.” 20

Then, in 2001, Takeyh again asserted that the reformists are Iran’s last chance of survival:

“In fact, for Iran to avoid collapsing into civil strife it must adopt some basic secular tenets. Whatever direction the country takes, this much is at least evident: Khomeini failed to establish a durable Islamic polity in Iran, and the clerics are ruling on borrowed time. 21

Takeyh emphasized the unique opportunity for the US to engage the Iranian regime and warned that if the reform movement is defeated, the US should adopt a new policy:

“I think, should there be - and I don’t anticipate that - there’s sort of a conservative backlash and takeover of power in Iran, U.S. policy toward Iran is going to be measurably altered, and if it’s not altered, that’s malpractice.”22

2004: Maloney and CFR masked the rise of Ahmadinejad’s faction

In July 2004, the Council on Foreign Relations released its Task Force Report on Iran. Suzanne Maloney directed this project. The report urged rapprochement with the Iranian regime, basically the same policy that many such reports had already proposed for the previous seven years. What made this CFR report unique was its analysis of the Iranian power structure after the defeat of reformers in two consecutive elections in 2003 and 2004. In fact, the CFR report was released at a time, when many Iranian analysts qualified as a turning point in the life of the Islamic Republic: The start of a new era, dominated by the radical factions related to the Revolutionary Guards. Nearly 100 members of the new parliament came from the Guards.

Alavi Tabar a prominent commentator in Iran declared in early 2004 that:

“We are actually at a turning point and something fundamental is happening which is the militarization of Iranian politics. The regime’s stance on nuclear issue, the affiliation of the new MPs and the positions taken by some of the regime’s leader regarding Iraq all are signs of the trend toward the control of power by a mafia kind complex which controls the Guards and the Bassijis.”23

In 2004, before the release of CFR’s report, the “Rouydad news” considered as the reformers’ news website, published a commentary and strongly warned that:

” We see clear indications of the new trend in the power structure. This trend was first demonstrated in the city councils elections and shows a total control of the” Guards”. During the parliamentary elections in 2004, the Guards and the Bassijis became very active and a majority of the new deputies came from these institutions and the security forces. The new head of the Iranian TV and Radio is also a former high ranking member of the Guards as it is the case for Ahmadinejad, the new mayor of Tehran. The Guards will pursue this strategy in the next presidential election of 2005 and their candidate is Ahmadinejad.”24

Shargh newspaper, wrote several editorials about the new emerging radical faction: “Abadgaran the victorious group in parliamentary election is dominated by these new fundamentalists and as a result, the traditional conservatives are marginalized.” 25

While a large number of Iranian analysts, political scholars and intellectuals were warning the Iranians and the international community about the rise of this new faction and its dangerous internal and international implications, the CFR task force report not only did not mention anything about this apparent element, it surprisingly discovered an “ascending pragmatic faction” in Iran:

“Iran is experiencing a gradual process of internal change that will slowly but surely produce a government more responsive toward its citizens‘ wishes and more responsible in its approach to the international community.” (page13)

” …. the pragmatists who appear to be ascendant in Tehran.” (page19)

“…. Some conservatives appear to favor a ‘China model’ of reform that maintains political orthodoxy while encouraging market reforms and tolerating expanding civil liberties.” (page 15) 26

Suzanne Maloney, Takeyh and friends magically discovered a new ascending “pragmatic” faction completely unknown to the Iranian observers inside the country. Takeyh and his cohorts did not stop there. In 2004 and 2005, they wrote numerous articles to institute that such pragmatic faction is indeed in command. In an extraordinary article Takeyh and N. Gvosdev (from CFR) brought together all of their untrue conjunctures. This article masked the rise of Ahmadinejad faction.

“The reality is that the postwar situation in Iraq and the massive projection of U.S. power along Iran’s [border] have strengthened the position of a cadre of pragmatic conservatives seeking practical solutions to Iran’s increasingly dire predicaments. Under the banner of “new thinking,” this group seeks to restructure Iran’s domestic priorities and international relations.” 27

“Such dire circumstances have facilitated the rise of a pragmatic wing among Iranian conservatives, sometimes known as the new Right. If the reformers are comparable to Gorbachev, the pragmatic conservatives resemble China’s Deng Xiaoping: they recognize the need for pragmatic policy adjustments to secure the survival of their regime. Specifically, the “China model” is perceived to include economic reform accompanied by some degree of social liberalization and a pragmatic foreign policy.” 27

“This clerical cadre of pragmatic conservatives is grouped around influential former Iranian president Rafsanjani and the outgoing parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karrubi … The pragmatic conservatives first found a home and a base within the political party Khedmatgozaran-i Sazandegi (Servants of Construction) that was set up in 199..” Ever since the closing years of the Rafsanjani administration (1989-1997), this faction has dominated key regime institutions such as the Expediency Council, which is responsible for mediating conflicts between the Majlis and the Guardian Council and for setting economic policy.” 27

“After most reformist candidates were disqualified from the 2004 elections, it has been the pragmatic grouping Abadgaran Iran-e-Islami, that has emerged as the leading faction within the new Majlis… indicating that the pragmatists have a comfortable base within the new legislature. Moreover, a leading figure of the new Right, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani, is the presumptive front-runner to succeed Khatami as president when the latter steps down in 2005.” 27

Even a cursory study of the Iranian press as well as the events in Iran would have pointed out the erroneous claims in the article. The course of events in 2005 proved the complete fallacy of Takeyh’s assertions. There was no relation between Rafsanjani and Karroubi. The new parliament, by no means could be presented as a pragmatist assembly. The “Abadgaran” was never a pragmatic group and contrary to Takeyh’s claim, the new right, bared no resemblance to Deng Xiaoping. They represent the most radical and fascist part of the regime.

Only one year later, Takeyh argued completely differently and called the new parliament a radical assembly which was against Rafsanjani. 28

Takeyh’s cohort, David L. Phillips from CFR also discovered that the defeat of reformers helped the emergance of a more pragmatic faction in Iran:

” At least the recent election results will break the log jam; (the eviction of reformers) Tehran will be represented by one unified government that is hopefully more pragmatic and more committed to fulfilling Iran’s international obligations.” 29

Gary Sick, another affiliate of CFR, went even further and completely denied the victory of conservatives. In his interview with the Farsi language radio Farda he declared:

“The fact that some well-known reformists are no longer in the parliament doesn’t mean that the new assembly is conservative. There are many independents and many reformers with the conservative pasts who are present in the new assembly.” 30

Takeyh and his colleagues were so certain about the ascendance of this pragmatic faction that they advised the U.S. administration to be prepared for a deal with Rafsanjani’s clan in 2005:

‘The U.S. should be prepared to take the first steps after the May 2005 Iranian election…. Rafsanjani’s cohorts would find intermediaries in either a second-term Bush administration or a Kerry administration who believe that promoting America’s interests and America’s values require engagement with Iran rather than confrontation. 27

As the 2005 election was approaching, Takeyh and CFR, once again switched gears and took a completely opposite position. In the middle of Iran’s presidential elections and when it became apparent that Rafsanjani’s chances to win are low, in an article titled “The World Should Not Pin Its Hopes on Rafsanjani” in Financial Times he wrote:

“.. in their euphoric embrace of Mr Rafsanjani, the Europeans neglect both Iran’s recent history and its political peculiarities … Contrary to the popular images of Mr. Rafsanjani as the only politician who can transcend Iran’s factionalized politics and produce results, his previous tenure as president was far from successful. [Here Takeyh reviews a long list of Rafsanjani's past failures.] …. Moreover, the younger generation of conservatives, many of whom covet the presidency themselves, resent not just Mr. Rafsanjani’s pragmatism but also his opportunism in terms of seeking yet another presidential term and thus denying them the opportunity…. In a strange twist, Mr Rafsanjani’s candidacy has generated more optimism in western capitals than on Iran’s street,”. 31

It is hard to believe that Takeyh so easily forgot the advice he was giving to the US government to be ready for a deal with Rafsanjani’s cohorts in 2005. Once again, in an article for Boston Globe on June 23rd, 2005 he asserted that even in the future there would be no chance for Rafsanjani:

” However, the facade of elections conceals the remarkable changes that Iran has undergone in the past few years. In a gradual yet relentless manner, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has consolidated his power over the theocracy….. The February 2004 parliamentary elections that witnessed the triumph of many of these conservatives essentially completed Khamenei’s political hegemony….. the future of Iran belongs not to the aging mullahs who were present at the creation of the revolution, but to Khamenei and his youthful, reactionary loyalists.” 32

2005- Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy is pragmatist

After Ahmadinejad won presidential elections in Iran, once again, Takeyh and friends changed tones. Takyeh wrote an extraordinary article in which he tried to camouflage Ahmadinejad’s threat which was already felt around the world. He wrote in Christian Science Monitor: “Why Iran isn’t a global threat”

“…Although the assertive nationalists (new appellation for fascism) who have taken command of Iran’s executive branch have dispensed with their predecessor’s “dialogue of civilizations” rhetoric, and display a marked indifference to reestablishment of relations with America, they are loath to jeopardize the successful multilateral détente that was the singular achievement of the reformist era.

The days when Iran sought to undermine established authority in the name of Islamic salvation are over. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s disciples have long abandoned the mission of exporting the revolution, supplanting it with conventional measures of the national interest.

Despite the chorus of concern, Iran’s new president has demonstrated no interest in substantially altering the contours of Iran’s international policy - nor has the country’s ultimate authority, the Supreme Leader. … But the notion that Iran’s foreign policy is entering a new radical state is yet another misreading of the Islamic Republic and its many paradoxes.” 33

Do not loose hope; Rafsanjani could come back to power

Only a few months prior to this, in an attempt to advocate US engagement with Ahmadinejad, Tekeyh had predicted a new irreversible era in the Iranian politics:

“Irrespective of the verdict of the presidential contest, the future of Iran belongs not to the aging mullahs who were present at the creation of the revolution, but to Khamenei and his youthful, reactionary loyalists.” 34

But after the world’s negative reaction to Ahmadinejad’s behavior, Takeyh changed his position again. As if his duty is to sustain a permanent window of hope for the West, he discovered a new solution: Rafsanjani or reformers will come back again. In his testimony before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on November 15, 2005 he declared

“In Iran, however, politics is a shifting landscape. It is not inconceivable that the reformers may stage yet another comeback and reclaim the parliament in the next election. Nor can it be ruled out that Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani or one of his pragmatic protégés will assume the office of the presidency yet again.

There are already signs that the clerical system is re-balancing itself and seeking to restraint its impetuous new president. Mahmoud Ahamdinejad’s inexperience and ideological stridency has cost Iran dearly… In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has empowered Rafsanjani to “supervise” the workings of the office of the presidency, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. How this latest attempt to curb Ahmadinejad will work in actual reality is hard to tell, but there does appear a determination by the leadership of the state to check his excesses and impose limits on his expansive ideological vision.” 35

2006- a new powerful faction: Realists

A few months later, Takeyh, one more time, changes position and finds a new faction. Now, the “Realists” are the new windows of hope for the West. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 19, 2006, Takeyh said:

“The debates are no longer between the pragmatists such as Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani and the more austere reactionary clerics… The current divide in the theocratic regime is between those who press for a revolutionary foreign policy and more tempered realists emphasizing Persian nationalism. This delineation is best exemplified by examining the worldviews of Ahmadinejad and the current head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani.

Realists: President Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical fulminations and presence on the international stage should not obscure the fact that he is not in complete command of Iran’s foreign relations. One of the most important actors in Iran today is the powerful Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani. As the leader of a new generation of realists that evolved in the intelligence community in the 1990s, this cohort’s has predominant influence over the direction of Iran’s international relations. Through their presence in key institutions, links with traditional clerical community and intimate ties to the Supreme Leader, the realists chart the course of Iran’s foreign policy”. 36

Only 6 weeks later, Takeyh changed his position one more time. For more than a year he had been arguing that the Iranian leadership and the Supreme Leader are checking Ahmadinejad’s power and as a result, the new “realists” charted Iran’s foreign policy. Now he admits that the Supreme Leader can not or does not want to control Ahmadinejad. On November 11, 2006, in a roundtable with Pollack, he declared:

“I actually think at this particular point Ahmadinejad is probably the second most important actor in Iran, arguably the most important actor because the supreme leader doesn’t have the capability or will or desire to rein him in. He has consolidated his control over all the relevant ministries…..He is probably the most-strongest president Iran has had since the first two, three years of the Rafsanjani presidency between ‘89 to ‘92, ‘93″. 37

2007: Nationalist Pragmatists are coming!

In yet another stretch of imagination, in Newsweek on Feb.26, 2007, Takeyh announced to the world that the true power holders in Iran are internationally well-behaved pragmatist nationalists:

“This emerging group looks askance at the strident rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Its members tend to stress Iranian nationalism over Islamic identity, and pragmatism over ideology. …. Over the past two years, members of this pragmatic faction have risen to influence within the highest ranks of government, the intelligence community and the military…. these men are trying to wrest control of Iran’s international relations from the most militant old-guard mullahs.” 38

Conclusion

As we have seen through a sample collection of Takeyh’s writings and proclamations, he has constantly insisted that the Iranian regime has always been ready to reach out to Washington. Regardless of who has been in power in Iran, Takeyh has claimed that pragmatists are in control of the foreign policy. The policy recommendation, based on such imagination stretching declarations is clear: “the United States would do better to shelve its containment strategy and embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief.” 39

The same advice is naturally offered in the nuclear confrontation with Tehran’s ayatollahs: “U.S. Can Only Stop Iranian Nuclear Program by Offering Broad Concessions .” 40

References

1- Council on Foreign relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17791/

2- “Pathway to Coexistence: A New U.S. Policy toward Iran: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/CFR-Saban_Chapter3_Iran_MaloneyTakeyh.pdf

3- CFR, Ray Takeyh: http://www.cfr.org/bios/9599/

4- Brookings: http://www.brookings.edu/experts/m/maloneys.aspx

State Department: http://www.state.gov/s/p/47013.htm \5-

5. Takeyh, R., Pragmatic theocracy: A contradiction in terms? in National Interest. April 1, 2000.

6. Takeyh, R., National Review, Nov. 5th, 2001.

7. Takeyh, R., A ‘New’ Security Agenda Revives Old Traditions, in Wall Street Journal Europe. October 9, 2002.

8. Takeyh, R., in Middle East Policy Council. December 12th, 2000.

9. Takeyh, R., in Financial Times. November 4, 2002.

10. Takeyh, R., in International Herald Tribune. August 24, 2004.

11. Takeyh, R., in Washington Quarterly. Autumn 2004.

12. Feinstein, L. and R. Takeyh, in The Baltimore Sun. September 26, 2005.

13. Takeyh, R., in a speech. February 22, 2007.

14. Wright, R., The Last Great Revolution. The Journal of The International Institute (http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol8no1/Wright.htm).

15. Wright, R., Iran Now a Hotbed of Islamic Reforms, in Los Angeles Times. December 29, 2000.

16. Wright, R., Iran’s New Revolution, in Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay10/robin-wright/iran-s-new-revolution.html). January/February 2000.

17. Maloney, S., in Middle East Policy. June 2000.

18. Takeyh, R., in Middle East Policy Journal. November 2000.

19. Takeyh, R., in Middle East Policy Journal. 11.2000 Number 4.

20. Takeyh, R., Iran in the Axis of Evil, in Updates from AIJAC. February 15, 2001.

21. Takeyh, R., in The National Interest, AIJAC. No. 63, Spring 2001.

22. Takeyh, R., in Middle East policy council. December 12th, 2000.

23. Alavi-Tabar, in Rouydad. May 1st, 2004.

24. in Rouydad. May 10th, 2004.

25. in Shargh. April 9, 2004.

26. Iran:Time for a New Approach. Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert M. Gates,

Co-Chairs, Suzanne Maloney, Project Director, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Iran_TF.pdf.

27. Takeyh, R. and N. Gvosdev, Pragmatism in the Midst of Iranian Turmoil, in The Washington Quarterly (http://www.twq.com/04autumn/docs/04autumn_takeyh-gvosdev.pdf). Autumn 2004.

28. in The Boston Globe. June 23, 2005.

29. Phillips, D., Pragmatism Needed in US-Iran Relations, in The Boston Globe. March 7, 2004.

30. Sick, G., Interview with Radio Farda. 18.2.2004.

31. Takeyh, R., The World Should Not Pin Its Hopes on Rafsanjani, in Financial Times. May 25, 2005.

32. Takeyh, R., The Triumph of Absolute Rule, in The Boston Globe. June 23, 2005.

33. Takeyh, R., Why Iran isn’t a global threat, in Christian science Monitor. Sep. 29th, 2005.

34. Takeyh, R., The Triumph of Absolute Rule, in The Boston Globe. June 23, 2005.

35. Takyeh, R., http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/111505Takeyh.pdf.

36. Takeyh, R., Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. September 19, 2006.

37. Takeyh and Pollack roundtable at CFR. November 1st, 2006.

38. Takeyh, R., in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17202829/site/newsweek/. Feb.26, 2007.

39. Takeyh, R. and V. Nasr, in Washington Post. Februray 8, 2007.

40. Takeyh, R., interview with CFR. April 13, 2006.

Eine Veranstaltung von STOP THE BOMB / This event is organized by STOP THE BOMB

English follows German

Nuklearmacht Iran
Über den Charakter des iranischen Regimes und seine nuklearen Ambitionen

Vortrag von Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi
(Direktor des Transatlantic Instituts, Brüssel)
Moderation: Simone Dinah Hartmann (STOP THE BOMB)

Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2008, 19:30 Uhr
Universität Wien, Neues Institutsgebäude, Hörsaal II
Universitätsstr. 7, 1010 Wien

Eine Veranstaltung von STOP THE BOMB
mit
Unterstützung von Scholars for Peace in the Middle East – Austria und der Studienvertretung Politikwissenschaft

Entwickelt der Iran Atomwaffen? Diese Frage wird international diskutiert und die Positionierung der neuen US-amerikanischen Administration und der Europäischen Union hinsichtlich des iranischen Regimes wird die Weltpolitik in den kommenden Monaten entscheidend mit bestimmen. Die Frage nach dem Ziel des iranischen Nuklearprogramms kann nur beantwortet werden, wenn man sich über den Charakter des iranischen Regimes und dessen Ambitionen Klarheit verschafft. Emanuele Ottolenghi wird die Geschichte, den augenblicklichen Stand und mögliche zukünftige Entwicklungen des iranischen Nuklearprogramms vor dem Hintergrund einer Analyse der khomeinistischen Ideologie skizzieren und der Frage nachgehen was eine angebrachte Reaktion der EU und ihrer Mitgliedsstaaten auf die nuklearen Ambitionen und die Menschenrechtsverletzungen des iranischen Regimes wäre.

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi ist Politikwissenschaftler, hat an der Oxford University unterrichtet und ist Direktor des Transatlantic Instituts in Brüssel. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Publikationen wie Newsday, Commentary, National Review Online, The Middle East Quarterly, Jewish Chronicle, The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, Die Welt, Il Corriere del Ticino, L’Unità, Il Foglio, Libero, Il Reformista und Standpoint Magazine.

Vortrag und Diskussion finden in englischer Sprache statt.
-----

Nuclear Power Iran
On the character of the Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions

Lecture by Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi
(Executive Director of the Transatlantic Institute, Brussels)
Chair: Simone Dinah Hartmann (STOP THE BOMB)

Wednesday, December 10th, 19.30
University of Vienna, Neues Institutsgebäude, lecture hall II
Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna

This event is organized by STOP THE BOMB and co-sponsored by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East – Austria and the student representatives for political science

Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? This is a question discussed at the international level, and the position of the new American administration and the European Union regarding the Iranian regime will decisively impact world politics in the upcoming months. The question of the purpose of the Iranian nuclear program can only be answered if one provides clarity on the character of the Iranian regime and its ambitions. Emanuele Ottolenghie will talk about the history, the current situation, and possible future developments regarding the Iranian nuclear program in the context of the Khomeinist ideology, and will further answer the question what an appropriate reaction of the European Union and its member states to the nuclear ambitions and human rights violations of the Iranian regime would be.

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi is a political scientist and Director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels. He frequently writes for publications such as Newsday, Commentary, National Review Online, The Middle East Quarterly, Jewish Chronicle, The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, Die Welt, Il Corriere del Ticino, L’Unità, Il Foglio, Libero, Il Reformista and Standpoint Magazine.

The lecture and discussion will be held in English.

Act NOW! Save the life of Farzad Kamangar / Agissez maintenant! Sauvons la vie de Farzad Kamangar

Act NOW!
Save the life of Farzad Kamangar

http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=453

Please join with the thousands of trade unionists and human rights defenders around the world who are mobilising in defence of Farzad Kamangar, an Iranian Kurdish teacher and trade unionist who is at risk of execution.

Education International received information from reliable sources that on 26 November Kamangar was taken from his cell 121 in ward 209 of Tehran's Evin prison in preparation for execution by hanging. However, the latest information is that he is still alive and was able to meet with his lawyer on 27 November for the first time in over two months. His situation remains precarious nonetheless.

Kamangar, aged 33, was sentenced to death by the Iranian Revolutionary Court on 25 February 2008 after a trial which took place in secret, lasted only minutes, and failed to meet Iranian and international standards of fairness. His lawyer, Kahlil Bahramian, said: "Nothing in Kamangar's judicial files and records demonstrates any links to the charges brought against him." Indeed, Kamangar was initially cleared of all charges during the investigation process.

Education International, the International Trade Union Confederation, the International Transport Workers Federation, Amnesty International and LabourStart are appealing to the Iranian authorities to commute the death sentence and ensure his case is reviewed fairly.

Agissez maintenant!

Iran : Sauvons la vie de Farzad Kamangar

http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=455


Education Internationale a reçu de sources fiables l’information que Farzad Kamangar, un jeune enseignant kurde iranien de 33 ans, condamné à mort pour ses activités syndicales, a été emmené, le 26 novembre, de sa cellule 121 à la salle 209 de l’infâme prison d'Evin de Téhéran en préparation de son exécution. Cependant, selon la plus récente information, il serait toujours en vie et a pu rencontrer son avocat le 27 novembre pour la première fois depuis plus de deux mois. Sa situation demeure néanmoins périlleuse.

Kamangar a été condamné à mort par la cour révolutionnaire iranienne le 25 février 2008 lors d’un simulacre de procès à huis clos tenu en quelques minutes dans un total irrespect des normes iraniennes et internationales d’équité. Son avocat, Kahlil Bahramian, estime "qu'il n’y a rien dans le dossier ni dans les actes d’accusation qui démontre le moindre lien entre Kamangar et les accusations portées contre lui". La phase d’instruction du procès a même conclu à l’absence de preuves à son encontre.

Education Internationale, la Confédération Syndicale Internationale, la Fédération Internationale des Ouvriers du Transport internationaux, Amnesty International et LabourStart appellent les autorités iraniennes à commuer la peine de mort et à ordonner une révision de son procès.

Pour sauver Farzad Kamangar de la pendaison, il faut que des dizaines de milliers de syndicalistes interpellent les autorités iraniennes. Les travailleurs de ce pays doivent pouvoir bénéficier des droits de l’homme, et notamment celui de se syndiquer, sans crainte ni inquiétude.

Influencing US policy toward Iran, Conference at New York University

Influencing US policy toward Iran,
Conference at New York University

Hassan Dai
Progressive American-Iranian Committee

On 3 December 2008, a group of “Iran experts” and scholars will be participating in a one day conference to debate the US policy toward Iran. This meeting, far from a usual experts’ gathering, is part of a broader campaign which aims to influence Obama’s policy with regards to Iran.

This new campaign started in early 2008 following the formation of the “Campaign for a new policy toward Iran“. This coalition included the Islamic Republic’s lobbyist groups and individuals. Their main objective was set to prevent the Congress to adopt any serious measures against the Iranian government. So far, they have been successful in shelving the H.R. 362 which originally intended to advise the president on more economic sanctions against Iran. Consequential to this success, a few weeks ago, a sizeable number of the same experts founded a new group, this time called “American Foreign Policy project“. They began their efforts by releasing a joint statement signed by 21 experts on Iran. In this statement, they urged the new administration to lift the sanctions and to be more lenient toward Iran.

This joint statement was presented during a Congressional briefing hosted by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Surprisingly, the famous statement is mainly a reprint of an older report released one year earlier by NIAC’s president Trita Parsi. This group is better known as “the Iranian lobby” by the government press in Tehran.

Now, this campaign has been extended to the academic boundaries. One such example would be the forthcoming conference to be held at the NYU Center for Dialogue. This conference, similar to the expert’s report, tries to give more gravity to the same policy advice; that the Iranian regime is stable, the US should forgo the sanctions and it should grant a good share of the Middle East to IRI. Interestingly, Gholamali Khoshroo, the former Iranian deputy foreign minister, also appears on the list of the University meeting speakers. Khoshroo’s presence by itself is a good indication of the aims and objectives of this conference and clearly reveals the nature, the direction and the intentions of this event.

The important issue however, is the timing of this large-scale campaign. This reminds us of two other similar previous events; one in 1997 and the other in 2004 when the US was at a turning point each time to shape its policy on Iran. On both occasions, a campaign was launched to influence the decision makers. On both occasions the recommendations were to show flexibility with the Iranian regime. On both occasions, the administration followed the prescription and as a result, Iran got into a stronger position to the detriment of the US’s disposition.

In 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected as president. With his election, “Iran experts” advocated that the reform movements would be irreversible in Iran. As we know, the Clinton administration was largely influenced by this campaign and unilaterally rewarded the Iranian regime with a series of incentives; some dearly costly to the United States. On 23 November 2004, Kenneth Pollack (Director for Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council) told the Saban Center:

“In the Clinton Administration in 1999 and 2000, we tried, very hard, to put the grand bargain on the table. And we tried. We made 12 separate gestures to Iran to try to demonstrate to them that we really meant it, and we were really willing to go the full nine yards and put all of these big carrots on the table if the Iranians were willing to give us what we needed. And the Iranians couldn’t.”

The second occasion was in 2004 nearing the end of Khatami’s period in the office followed by the emergence of Ahmadinejad. Again, the “Iran experts” argued that although the reformists were leaving the power posts, but the pragmatists were ascending. The US once again adopted the soft approach toward Tehran. This period can be best explained by making reference to Secretary Robert Gates. In his speech, at National Defense University on September 29 he said:

“And of course, in the 2004 or (200)5 study that I co-chaired with Brzezinski for the Council on Foreign Relations with respect to U.S. policy on Iran, given the fact that President Khatami was in power, sounded more moderate — at least was not making some of the outrageous statements that Ahmadinejad does — we said, “It’s worth reaching out to them.”

Gates is well placed to appraise the outcome of this erroneous approach:

“I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. (Laughter.) I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979.

Every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed. Some have gotten into deep trouble associated with their failures, but the reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship.”

Once again, we are placed at yet another turning point in the US politics to shape its course of action toward Iran. Again the same “Iran experts” are getting involved and are running their own shows. This time though, there are no reformists or pragmatists in power in Tehran. Once again we hear the same campaign waffles coming from the Iranian lobbyist groups for the US to adopt a more amicable practice with Iran; this time though, simply because Bush was not peaceful enough. Will Obama be manipulated by this campaign?

This time the progressive Iranian community will be on the scene to stave off such déjà vu.

Justice Denied

Human Rights & Democracy for Iran
A project of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation

WashingtonDC, November 28, 2008
...........

Justice Denied

We stand resolute in our demand to know the whole truth about these crimes against humanity and to have a competent court investigate them. … These crimes are still an open wound in the collective conscience of the Iranian society. And each one of us feels responsible to press for justice.”

Forouhar, Mokhtari, and Pouyandeh families (2008)

Those who have signed this call for justice are the children and relatives of four peaceful dissidents and intellectuals slain in Iran in the fall of 1998. Ten years ago, on November 22^nd 1998, Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar were brutally murdered in their home by agents of the Ministry of Information. While the Iranian society was still chocked by the news of this abject crime, two members of Iran’s writers’ associations, Mohammad Mokhtari and Mohammad Ja’far Pouyandeh disappeared and were found dead on December 3^rd and December 10^t, 1998, respectively.

Parvaneh and Dariush Forouhar were outspoken critics of the Islamic Republic. Mokhtari and Pouyandeh were actively engaged in reviving the independent Iranian writers association. All four had received threats and warnings regarding their activities. Their murder brought to light a string of disappearances and suspicious deaths of scores of intellectuals and dissidents. The evidence disclosed over the past 10 years points to the fact that the Ministry of Information implemented throughout the 1990s, the decision made by the highest authorities of the Islamic Republic, to eliminate peaceful dissidents.

The attempt of the Forouhar, Mokhtari, and Pouyandeh families to seek justice for the murders has brought them little more than frustration, distress, and disillusionment. The Iranian authorities attributed the killings to “rogue elements” and unnamed “foreign powers” aiming to harm the Islamic Republic. They refused to investigate or prosecute high ranking officials who are believed to have ordered the systematic elimination of peaceful dissidents inside and outside Iran, silenced the press, intimidated the families and imprisoned their lawyer.

On November 22, as in previous years, the authorities banned friends and families of the Forouhars to gather and commemorate their death neither in public nor in the privacy of their own home. The security services closed off the street leading to the Forouhars’ house, confiscated the mobile phones and identity papers of five individuals who intended to attend the ceremony, and dispersed people who attempted to stay nearby and talk.

On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of these serial killings, The Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation has translated “Report to the Nation”, (attached in PDF format) in which the Forouhars daughter, Parastou, provides a public account about her parents’ death and the subsequent investigation and prosecution.

ABF honors the memory of the victims and urges all Iranians to show their support and solidarity with the three families’ appeal for truth and justice by signing their petition*. ABF also calls on the international community to remember these victims and demand that the Iranian authorities allow an independent investigation of their murders.

___________________________

*

Text of the families' petition:

Fellow citizens,

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the tragic assassination of dissidents in November 1998, we pay homage to the memory of the victims, Paravaneh and Darioush Forouhar (political dissidents), Mohammad Mokhtari (writer), and Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh (writer), along with all other victims of political crimes [in Iran].

We stand resolute in our demand to know the whole truth about these crimes against humanity and to have a competent court investigate them. The killing of dissidents was an organized plan implemented from within government’s bodies. These crimes are still an open wound in the collective conscience of the Iranian society. And each one of us feels responsible to press for justice.

With the hope for the rule of freedom and justice in Iran.

Forouhar, Pouyandeh and Mokhtari families

To support this appeal please send your name, surname and city of residence to daadkhahi@googlemail.com.

You may also send a signed copy of the appeal to :

Tehran, Saidi avenue,
Hedayat avenue (Shahid Qaedi), Shahid Moradzadeh street, #22,
Forouhar residence.

Iran’s Lobby Drooling in Washington Bazaar

Iran’s Lobby Drooling in
Washington Bazaar

Kayvan Kaboli
http://www.iranian-americans.com/

If we refer to their past declarations, their message is clear and simple: the Iranian regime is not a threat to either the West or the US. The reason for its nuclear program or regional expansion is because Iran is under threat. They feel lonely and vulnerable. Therefore, remove the threat from Iran and it will act reasonably. The same goes for human rights violations. Iran is under US threat and fears the policy of regime change, therefore, to improve the human rights situation, they are asking for the ceasing of pressure on this regime. Finally, if you listen to these “Iran experts,” you should do exactly what Trita Parsi has been trying to say for so long, that the US should accept Iran’s power in the Middle East. In an article in the Huffington Post of April 22, 2008 he asked: “Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?” Parsi emphasized that: “Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region.”
...........................................

Iran’s Lobby Drooling in Washington Bazaar

By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian human rights activist and political scholar. Daioleslam was born in Tehran in 1957. After finishing his primary and high school in Tehran, he entered the Polytechnic University of Tehran in 1974. In the years after the 1979 Iranian Islamist Revolution in Iran, he became a student movement leader standing up against Khomeini’s repression and mass executions. He eventually left the country and settled in France. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Daioleslam was active with Iranian secular movements, human rights activities and the defense of Iranian political prisoners.

In 2001, Daioleslam moved to the United States and concentrated on political research. Since 2005, he has been collaborating with two independent Iranian journalists inside Iran focusing on the Iranian Regime’s lobby in the U.S. His reports have been largely published by major Farsi websites and several US journals. Daioleslam has frequently appeared as an expert guest on the Voice of America-TV as well as on other outlets of Persian media.

FP: Hassan Daioleslam, welcome back to FrontPage Interview.

Daioleslam: My pleasure to be back.

FP: The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is hosting an event in the Senate tomorrow (tuesday). They are going to talk about the new president’s policy toward Iran and Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) and Representative John Tierney (D-MA) are among the speakers. Trita Parsi, the president of NIAC, will moderate the conference.¹ What do you think about it?

Daioleslam: There are 2 elements; first is the timing of the event and the rush of holding such conference only a few weeks after Obama’s election. Second is the message they want to send.

FP: Let’s start with the timing. Why so quickly?

Daioleslam: The timing of these meetings could have the impact of influencing the new administration’s Iran policy from the beginning. It could create an environment in which Obama’s presumed pressure on Iran would become more costly. Timing is very important. Let’s look at an interesting interview given by Trita Parsi’s former employer, Hooshang Amirahmadi² who was in Tehran a few days ago and talked about this subject. He told the “Etemad” newspaper in Tehean that the “Iranian lobby” should act quickly to influence the next administration:³ He talked about the Washington bazaar:

“There is clash between various regional [Middle East] lobbies. Israelites will fast gather around Obama . Arabs will also spend their money to get close to Obama. Unfortunately, Iran is very lonely in Washington, and those few, like us, who defend the Iranian rights, are subject of unkind hostility in Tehran. These gentlemen [in Iran] do not truly understand what they do, and how they weaken our position. As a result the field is left wide open for Israelis and Arabs and enemies of Iran. Firstly, Iran should realize that, and empower its friends in Washington, especially in the next one to two months, which is the time [to do it].

Iranian leaders should pay attention to what is going on, and strengthen their friends. They [Iranian leaders] should have confidence in, energize, and trust their friends [in Washington] so they enter the arena. This is very important. Therefore the next two or three months are the time to conquer Obama’s heart and mind and that of his teams. Anyone who acts faster will rest trouble free for the next 8 years. Anyone who does not go to that bazaar [marketplace] now, will have a tough time entering that bazaar in future.”

FP: Who is Amirahmadi?

Daioleslam: He is the president of the American Iranian Council (AIC) founded in 1997 and funded by US business interests especially the oil industry.⁴ They were very active until 2001 and pushed for a rapprochement with the Iranian regime. They held exactly the kind of events that Parsi is going to hold next week in the Senate.

FP: Is there a relation between Amirahmadi’s declaration and the NIAC’s event?

Daioleslam: The answer is probably in another Iranian newspaper, Aftab. Recently, they published an interview with Trita Parsi and in the introduction, the editor wrote that NIAC is doing exactly the same activity as Amirahmadi, the only difference is that NIAC is more influential.⁵

“Houshang Amirahmadi founded his council, The American Iranian Council (AIC) in 1997. In 2001, Trita Parsi, as a young Iranian Swedish came to the U.S. and joined AIC as the managing director. In 2002, he [Parsi] with the support of the Congressman Bob Nay started a new organization called NIAC (National Iranian American Council). Since then Parsi has been able to achieve a superior status than Amirahmadi.”

FP: Are they saying that NIAC or similar groups lobby in favor of the Iranian regime?

Daioleslam: When in April 2007, FrontPage magazine published my first article about NIAC’s activities and its relation to the clerical regime, a coordinated campaign by governmental press was launched in Tehran to defend NIAC. Some Iranian newspapers called NIAC the “Iranian lobby.” This is the exact term they used.⁶

FP: Let’s go to the second point, what is the message they want to send by these kinds of events?

Daioleslam: If we refer to their past declarations, their message is clear and simple: the Iranian regime is not a threat to either the West or the US. The reason for its nuclear program or regional expansion is because Iran is under threat. They feel lonely and vulnerable. Therefore, remove the threat from Iran and it will act reasonably. The same goes for human rights violations. Iran is under US threat and fears the policy of regime change, therefore, to improve the human rights situation, they are asking for the ceasing of pressure on this regime. Finally, if you listen to these “Iran experts,” you should do exactly what Trita Parsi has been trying to say for so long, that the US should accept Iran’s power in the Middle East. In an article in the Huffington Post of April 22, 2008 he asked: “Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?” Parsi emphasized that: “Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region.”⁷

FP: If Iran is not a threat, and it is feasible to settle the differences between the US and Iran, why hasn’t it been done yet?

Daioleslam: Here comes a central tenant of the pro-Iran campaign. It is very important to understand how they present their campaign. In a long article titled “Iranian lobby and Israeli decoy”, I talked about this issue last year.⁸ The pivotal element in their campaign is Israel.

Similar to the Iranian regime’s goal of putting Israel at the center of its foreign policy, its advocacy organizations have also concentrated their efforts on Israel. It is not accidental that Parsi’s doctoral thesis and his only book are focused on the “Israeli problem.”⁹

The Iranian lobby’s campaign line is simple and efficient; Iran has always been ready to reach an agreement with the US, and the reason behind US hostilities and refusal to engage Iran, they say, is Israel. He wrote in 2006: ¹⁰

“For more than 14 years, Israel has been the primary force countering Iran’s nuclear advances. Though Israel presents the prospect of a nuclear Iran as a global rather than an Israeli problem, it has compelled Washington to adopt its own red lines and not those of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT)…Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel’s strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel’s concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival….Israel is playing hardball to prevent Washington from cutting a deal with Tehran that could benefit America, but deprive Israel of its military and strategic supremacy.”

For Parsi, it was not only the US attitude towards the Iranian nuclear issue that had been dictated by Israel, but also the international community’s decision to refer the Iranian file to the UN: ¹¹

“With the issue of Iran’s nuclear program being taken up by the U.N. Security Council, Israel’s hawkish policy and AIPAC’s support for Bush administration hard-liners would appear to be paying dividends.”

FP: What is the purpose of this campaign? What do they expect from US?

Daioleslam: Interesting question. Only they can say, but it is interesting to see the result of the policies from the Clinton and Bush administrations. The best example is the experience during the past 2 years after the Baker-Hamilton report was released and the US intensified its efforts to accommodate Tehran. Robert Gates took the command as the Defense Secretary and together with Secretary Rice, they tried to approach Tehran. It is difficult to find a politician in the US more favorable to negotiating with Iran than Robert Gates. What has been the result of 2 years of rewarding Iran under Gates and Rice? He brought a clear and unequivocal response during his speech at National Defense University on September 29th. He said:¹²

“I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. (Laughter.) I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979.

Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed. Some have gotten into deep trouble associated with their failures, but the reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship.

I just think this is a case where we have to look at the history of outreach that was very real, under successive presidents, and did not yield any results. I think until the Iranians decide they want to take a different approach, to the rest of the world, that where we are is probably not a bad place.”

FP: Do you think they could paralyze Obama’s policy toward Iran?

Daioleslam: I think that US policy will finally be shaped in response to the Iranian regime’s behavior. Very soon, the new administration will confront the reality and will adopt a more robust policy than what President Bush has been pursuing. Shortly after, those who favor Iran will portray the Obama administration as being under Israeli’s orders and infiltrated by Neocons.

FP: Thank you Mr. Daioleslam.

Daioleslam: Thank you Jamie for inviting me.

Notes:

1-http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1270&Itemid=59

2- See Parsi’s resume posted on Web. Advisor to Bob Ney and director of AIC. Mr. Amirahmadi is president of AIC. See http://web.archive.org/web/20011120204601/www.geocities.com/tritaparsi/resume.html; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooshang_Amirahmadi.

3- Etemad newspaper, taken by Emrooz, Nov. 12, 2008, http://emruz.net/ShowItem.aspx?ID=18725&p=1

4- Look at this AIC document which talks about its creation and funding. http://www.american-iranian.org/aboutus/growthplan.pdf at 13 (listing several members of the board who are also executives at various oil companies).

For a complete documentation on AIC, go to my website and see this file: http://www.iranianlobby.com/pfiles/majmoe-asnad2_hoshang_amir_ahmadi.pdf

5- Aftab Newspaper August 5, 2008, http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcc10q2b0q4m.html

6- Among them, see the 6 following government controlled newspapers: Ghods:http://www.qudsdaily.com/archive/1386/html/2/1386-02-01/page61.html

Alef:http://www.alef.ir/content/view/7756/

Fars News:http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8601280492

EmamMehdi:http://www.emammahdi.com/news/watr.asp?sys=110&subof=1&bakhsh=8&NewsID=857

Tebyan:http://old.tebyan.net/teb.aspx?nId=28205

Javan:http://www.javannewspaper.com/1386/860130/world.htm

7- Trita Parsi: Can the US and Iran share the Middle East: Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/can-the-us-and-iran share_b_97670.html?show_comment_id=12663467

8- Hassan Daioleslam, The Iranian lobby and the Israeli decoy, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_iranian_lobby_and_the_isra.html

9- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trita_Parsi

10- Parsi: “A challenge to Israel’s strategic primacy” at: http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/inside.php?id=468

11- Parsi: A modus vivendi between Jerusalem and Tehran” at: http://www.forward.com/articles/a-modus-vivendi-between-jerusalem-and-tehran/

12- http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4295

---

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.