Iranian Liberal Democrat

Dear MM

MM jan: I'm not disappointed. I take no sides here. I see this process as a discovery proceeding in the court.

My position on NIAC is very different than many others. As I had mentioned many time before, I don't think NIAC advocates or supports IRI's interests. I don't think Trita is an IRI stooge or he works for IRI. He is a defacto liason for State Department and the US interests.

NIAC is an American institution. A brain child of American Leftist faction (the realist) of State Department and maybe even CIA. There is nothing Iranian about this political venture. It simply a business model for the State Department to protect the hegemonic interest of the US in the region even it means supporting  a malleable Islamic Republic  Iran's interests and human rights for Iranians or democracy are not even on the radar. They are only used as a mean to an end...

answers to 11 questions to mammad

Dear friends,

I have disagreed with basically every political position of Sargord with regards to Iran.  I have also disagreed with mammad with regards to certain positions he has taken in the past.  However, I hope that my thoughts and intentions with regards to bringing democracy to Iran are clear to Iranian.com readers, and I am sorry that my good friends Vildemose, VPK and others are disappointed on my positions on NIAC.  

Nonetheless, after some digging in with friends, here are some answers to the 11 questions to mammad.  As I eluted to before, I am sure that these answers will trigger more questions from our failed professor at hand.  I also have to agree with Ari that this is a conspiracy blog designed to stretch ENDLESS arguments.  So, with regards, I am ending this conversation.

-------------------------------------------

1. Is it true or false that a person with the name Siamak Namazi was among the top leaders of NIAC? Please simply write whether Siamak Namazi was or was not one of the top leaders of NIAC.

False.  Siamak Namazi is not a NIAC founder and has never had a leadership role in NIAC. He doesn’t have a role in NIAC at all!

2. It is true or false that Siamak’s brother, (Babak Namazi) was top official of Atieh Bahar company in Iran?

Not sure  - who cares.

3. Is it true or false that Siamak Namazi’s sister (Pari Namazi) and her husband Mr. Bijan Khajepour were top officials of the Atieh Bahar company?

To the best of my knowledge,  Pari is not Siamak’s sister

4. Is it true or false that Atieh Bahar was one of the top (if not THE TOP) company in IRI connecting, helping and consulting foreign corporations with opening operations in Iran?

AB is a consulting firm. They do the same work in Iran as consulting  firms do in DC – so no, you do NOT need that type of connection with the government. Furthermore, Bijan was ARRESTED last summer as part of the wave of Ahmadinejad’s arrests against the green movement and beyond!

5. Is it possible to have such operations like those of Atieh Bahar and have no major relationships with high officials of the Islamic Republic regime?

 Yes, it is absolutely possible – they are just a consulting firm!

6. Did Atieh Bahar have a relationship with Rafsanjani’s group? Please either yes or no.

 No, to the best of my knowledge.

7. Did Atieh Bahar have a relationship with other top official of the regime? Please either yes or no.

No, as far as I know, no Iranian official is part of AB, and further more, AB has nothing to do with NIAC!!!!!!! This is Macarthurism at its best – what the (*&(*&(*^*%&^%&^%&^% has that got to do with NIAC??

8. If Siamak Namazi was among the top leaders of NIAC, and his family members (Babak Namazi, Pari Namazi, and Bijan Khajepour) were the top officials of Atieh Bahar, does it logically follow that this constitutes a connection between NIAC and the regime officials?

Your logic falls apart at the first step since Siamak wasn’t a founder nor a leader of NIAC! 　

9. Please correct me if I am wrong: If Atieh Bahar is connected to Rafsanjani’s group, does it logically follow that NIAC is connected to the Rafsanjani faction of the regime?

Your logic falls apart since AB has nothing to do with NIAC!

10. If NIAC was able to get rid of the U.S. sanctions against the IRI, do you think these individuals (Trita Parsi, Bijan Khajepour, Siamak Namazi, Babak Namazi, and Pari Namazi) could make huge amounts of money in making connections between American companies and the Iranian officials?

 NIAC’s position against broad indiscriminate sanctions is per the decision of its membership. In fact, more than 70% of Iranian Americans oppose broad indiscriminate sanctions according to Berkeley University’s study. Per your twisted logic, all of these Iranian Americans must be working for the regime since they oppose broad sanctions. That includes of course Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji.
 

11. In your opinion, is it reasonable or it is irrational to think that a possible motive for NIAC officials (e.g., Trita Parsi and Siamak Namazi) was for personal financial gain?

It is completely irrational, illogical and insane since not a single one of your premises were accurate. Based on 10 disconnected and false premises and assumptions, you wish Iranian-Americans to buy your illogical conclusion. This raises questions that you faked your way through college and through your PhD thesis.

Re: NED - Find some answers in this 2007 T. Parsi article

Michael Rubin must really be scared. Actually the whole neocon establishment must be, as they've recently pulled out big guns to attack my organization, the National Iranian American Council, and its allies for defending the wishes of Iranian pro-democracy and human rights activists.

The father of failed regime change funding as a former advisor to Donald Rumsfeld on Iran and Iraq and, Rubin helped pioneer the U.S. effort to bring "democracy" to Iraq and the greater Middle East in 2003. We all know where that got us. Five years and thousands of lives later, the U.S. is trapped, Iraq is in shatters and democracy has become a dirty word in the Middle East.

If Rubin and his cronies had their way, the same fate would fall on the people of Iran. No wonder Iranian pro-democracy activists have rejected Rubin's help.

Last year, Secretary Condoleezza Rice disclosed the existence of a $75 million State Department "democracy promotion" program in Iran. In response to the disastrous impact this decision has had on Iran's civil society, NIAC teamed up with human rights and foreign policy groups to educate Congress about its implications for Iranian NGOs.

Today, both lawmakers and the U.S. government have started to see the realities of this unfortunate program. Anxious not to perpetuate US blunders of the past -- beginning with the 1953 CIA-led coup of Iran's first democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh -- Congress is taking a second look at the funding, while Secretary Rice has taken the program out of the hands of political appointees in the Administration and given it to professionals within the State Department instead.

Rice's decision shows that even the Bush administration has come to realize that this money is hurting the very people it aims to assist.

Rubin must have sensed that Congress is no longer willing to act precipitously based on faulty intelligence and the recommendations of a few hardliners like himself. Frankly, it's about time.

Rubin says he is an expert on Iran. Rubin says he has the best interests of the Iranian people in mind. Rubin says the Iranian people want the $75 million, though he admits the program isn't effective anyways.

Before taking him at his word, however, think back to Rubin and the neocon's record: They said they could bring democracy to Iraq through a U.S. preventive attack. They said they had the best interest of the Iraqi people in mind. And they promised the American people that war would be a cakewalk and that America would be greeted as a liberator.

But in his efforts to defend a failed program, Rubin has had to resort to character assassination against NIAC and our efforts to prevent war with Iran and put the interest of Iran's civil society ahead of Rubin's personal agenda.

Rubin attempts to create a false link between NIAC's work with Iranian civil society (funded by the National Endowment for Democracy - NED) and his own "regime-change" fund, while accusing NIAC of seeking to end funding for U.S.-Iran broadcasting such as Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Farda.

The reality is that there are smart ways to help Iranian civil society and there are incredibly stupid ways. NIAC, through funding from NED, had chosen the former.

For several years, NIAC had worked to build bridges between American and Iranian NGOs (an endeavor for which NIAC, one of the largest Iranian American organizations in the U.S., is uniquely qualified). The key, however, has always been to let our non-political capacity-building programs be driven by the demands of the Iranian NGOs -- not by U.S. ideologues like Rubin who neither know Iran nor care about Iran's civil society.

The difference between the $75 million and NIAC's work is made clear by the Iranian NGOs themselves. Our cooperation with Iranian NGOs progressed satisfactorily for several years. All of that changed once the $75 million -- and the explicit political agenda that went with it - was announced. The $75 million completely changed the atmosphere in Iran and prompted the Iranian government to clamp down on all Iranian NGOs. Our counterparts in Iran -- who had benefited greatly from our collaboration in the areas of NGO management, for instance -- began shying away from having any contact with U.S.-based organizations, even with those like NIAC who oppose the State Department program.

Though we were disappointed, we fully understood and respected their decision. After all, the Iranian NGOs had no choice. Michael Rubin's regime change money had put their safety at risk and they were now forced to limit their contacts with the outside world.

Desperate to defend his failed policy, Rubin came after NIAC. He falsely claimed that NIAC opposes funding for Radio Farda and VOA. But eradicating or reprogramming the $75 million does not spell the demise of these entities. The base funding for Farda and VOA comes out of a separate pot, under the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In fact, many opponents of the State Department's $75 million program advocate reprogramming the money to U.S.-Iran broadcasting and cultural exchanges. But they also point out that there is a significant need to raise the quality of these outlets since their journalistic standards have suffered greatly over the past two years and caused the credibility of Farda and VOA Persian to plummet among Iranians.

In consideration of these facts, Rubin's allegations have the distinct smell of desperation.

His insecurity is well founded. Rubin, in his dogged support for the Iran democracy funding ,hardly stands up to the likes of Noble Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, investigative journalist Akbar Ganji, Woodrow Wilson scholar Haleh Esfandiari, and Human Rights Watch, who have spearheaded the campaign to end this misguided program.

We wonder how much contact Rubin has actually had with NGOs in Iran, which have found themselves increasingly isolated as a result of the U.S. policy he advocates. If he truly is in touch with the people of Iran, he must simply not care about their welfare or respect them enough to heed their calls.

Masoud: I see the entire Islamist (covert and overt types)

"sack of liars" on this site  are  attacking you. Obviously once again you have touched a raw islamist nerve here with your comments. Well done, keep at it my hamvatan exposing the west residing  islamist hypocites defending the system they themselves have abandoned in favour of easy life in democratic west.

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

I tried to answer your question (to Vildee jaan)

Your question was: "What if Masoud Kazemzadeh, Abbas Milani, Karim Sajadpour, Amir Taheri had given a lecture to CIA and asked to be liasion of the state department??"

My answers were:

--Why would these guys lecture themselves? (rejected by Vildee jaan).

--Among these fellows Mossad jaan could potentially be lecturing CIA,......, on behalf of AIPAC. (rejected by Vildee jaan)

Granted my answers did not please you, I did my best, shouldn't I get credit for trying instead of unfriendly remarks!?

Marhoom curmudgeon kharmagas

kHARMAGAS JOONAM: do whatever your hateful heart desires...see if I care.

You are a grotesque neighborhood bully and your biggest punishment in life is being YOU...

You're ignored like a pathetic magas that your are from now on. Will not read your jafangiat...

That is an excellent argument by Rostam (NOT)

Sargord is also against military strike on Iran, and since we don't want to be on Sargord side, we should support the military strike on our home land then?!?!?!?! Yeah makes sense, just as much as the arguments against NIAC based on arguements we have heard so far

A bit of logic can do all of us a lot of good.

Mehrdad

Still, very good question Vildee jaan!

Vildee  jaan says: "What if Masoud Kazemzadeh, Abbas Milani, Karim Sajadpour, Amir Taheri had given a lecture to CIA and asked to be liasion of the state department??"

Why would these guys lecture themselves? (rejected by Vildee jaan).

Ok, Vildee jaan, I try again, among these fellows Mossad jaan could potentially be lecturing CIA,......, on behalf of AIPAC.

BTW, nice shoes Vildee jaan.

& Kharmagas,

with love &

اری من با دهان ِ

اری
من با دهان ِ حيرت گفتم:

«ــ اي ياوه

ياوه

ياوه،

خلائق!

مستيد و منگ؟

يا به تظاهر

تزوير مي‌کنيد؟
از شب هنوز مانده دو دانگي.
ور تائب‌ايد و پاک و مسلمان

نماز را

از چاوشان نيامده بانگي!»

خلائق!

مستيد و منگ؟

يا به تظاهر

تزوير مي‌کنيد؟
از شب هنوز مانده دو دانگي.
ور تائب‌ايد و پاک و مسلمان

نماز را

از چاوشان نيامده بانگي!»

...

«ــ اين گول بين که روشني ِ آفتاب را

از ما دليل مي‌طلبد.»

توفان ِ خنده‌ها...

«ــ خورشيد را گذاشته،

مي‌خواهد

با اتکا به ساعت ِ شماطه‌دار ِ خويش
بيچاره خلق را متقاعد کند

که شب

از نيمه نيز برنگذشته‌ست.»

توفان ِ خنده‌ها...

با چشم‌ها

Kharmagas:

Kharmagas: Yawn....

Keep on slandering and maligning people; that is the only thing you are good at....

Very good question Vildee jaan!

Vildee  jaan says: "What if Masoud Kazemzadeh, Abbas Milani, Karim Sajadpour, Amir Taheri had given a lecture to CIA and asked to be liasion of the state department??"

Why would these guys lecture themselves? 

Very Good Questions Prof Kazemzadeh

And more proof the NIAC does not really represent Iranian American Interests in the USA. Trita/NIAC represent IRI's interest and Iranian American apologists who support the IRI. Yes guilty of supporting the IRI  by association Trita. 

There is however, one

There is however, one possible use that Americans may need these individuals for: acting as middle men in cutting deals with and identifying the more amenable (rogue) elements of the Islamic regime.

spot on. In fact, that is the only reason they are given a platform in the American media. In fact, these individuals are only recruited on behalf of US geopolitical interests in the region not the interest of Iran or Iranians.

Excellent questions, Masoud

Excellent questions, Masoud jan.

What if Masoud Kazemzadeh, Abbas Milani, Karim Sajadpour, Amir Taheri had given a lecture to CIA and asked to be liasion of the state department??

NIAC and CASMII would have shred those individual to pieces....Articles after articles by Sorya Ulrich khanoom, Khar magas, Q, Mammad agha,  and other cast of characters would have appeared in all kinds of publications including IC.

The double standard and hypocrisy are breathtakingly on display in black and white...

Dear Rostam,

Thanks for the information. As for question #3 about the bandwagon: If you were in Iran right when it was determinedthe Shah wasn't coming back, you would have no difficulty understanding the overnight change of hearts, at all.I know this academically "well-educated" merchant who changeshis mind about bombing or not bombing Iran based on how badlyor well his business is going! It reminds of the book, "Mother Courage."Thanks again!

Dear Masoud,

Brilliant questions. Don't tell me you are actually waitingfor Mammad to return with answers. What he says about Fred disappearing from this site when challenged bysome contributors is merely self-projection. But let's hope he WILL answer them if only to prove me wrong!As you can see the buffoonery has already begun and the otherwise"civil" arguments have been reduced to desperate attempts atbelittling your very important blog. The mullah lovers of all shades and colorswho would readily raise their voices against any move by the U.S.which might remotely benifit Iranians in their quest for democracy areshowing thier disdain for your blog for asking legitimate questions pertaining to the nature of an organization which claims to represent Iranian-Americans. It is your prerogative as an Iranian-American to questionthe validity of such claims and to carefully scrutinize the modusoperandi of any such entities. Heedless endorsement of and incautious attachment to inscrutable individuals and opaqueorganizations were what got us here in the first place.Keep up the great work!G. Rahmanian

Farah Jan

You are 100% right. The American intelligence services seem pretty desperate. Years ago I had a discussion with a Professor who worked for them. I suggested using human intelligence in addition to  of all the high tech stuff.  Got an ear full of why it won't work. 

I am seriously worried for the CIA!

Let us  for a moment put aside all these arguments about whether Trita Parsi should or should not have given a presentation to the CIA and the State Department's officials. I am not so much interested in the pros and cons of the act but in the intelligence quality and worthiness of what Parsi could have passed on to his spooks audience. 

If true, it shows a seriously alarming decline in the intelligence gathering methods by the CIA and a worrying reliance on a poor and dubious quality of intelligence in place of up to date and reliable data passed on by effective field agents.  Houshang Amir Ahmadi, Trita Parsi, Vali Nasr or their more celebrity conscious counter parts like Hooman Majd and Reza Aslan  can by no stretch of imagination , provide any intelligence of even mediocre value that Americans or their allies don't already know. And as far analysis is concerned again it is deeply worrying that Americans are so poorly uninformed about the situation in Iran that must seek opinion or advice from people who are not even near to the inner circles of decision making within the Islamic regime. Academics have never proved to be reliable sources when it comes to quality intelligence. They are more interested in inflating the number of their publications than digging up quality intelligence. Just look at the case of  false existence of WMDs in Iraq and how part of allies 'presentation to the UN security council was based on an Iraqi student's PhD thesis!! Of course one may  argue that the thesis was just an excuse to justify the invasion. 

Furthermore, none of the above mentioned individuals can be  or should fully trusted (by Americans) as their loyalties to one side or the other is highly questionable, to say the least, Chalabi being a case in point. 

There is however, one possible use that Americans may need these individuals for: acting as middle men in cutting deals with and identifying the more amenable (rogue) elements of the Islamic regime.   

In conclusion, American intelligence services have still a lot to learn from their British and Russian counter parts. This is why  after seventy years of post-war experience they are still far behind the other two when it comes to intelligence gathering and analysis.

FR

MM, Congradulations...

You and Sargord are now on the same side. Supporting NIAC does have these kind of strange results.

Yeah, MM, in the past I've

Yeah, MM, in the past I've been put through the same piled-on questions treatment more than a few times here on the IC.

It's a desperate tactic.

These folks are merely envious of the influence and clout NIAC has in Washington DC, pure and simple.

They figure NIAC's gain in legitimacy is their loss of any hope to be relevant. It's pathetic. But then again, they're pathetic. It's just so stereotypically petty.

Honestly, we native son Americans find some of these older Iranian exile types extremely distasteful with their maladjusted ways.

Professors Kazemzadeh and Sahimi

Kazemzadeh: You have done a great job exposing the NIAC lobby in this blog. It can be observed that the more pro-NIAC individuals struggle to defend NIAC, the more they drown it! It is kind of like struggling in a quick sand. The more you struggle the worst it gets.

I'd like to present to you and others a nice link about NIAC. Here it is:

//www.iranian-americans.com/2009/11/1548.html

If I may, I also have a few questions of want to ask:

1. How can Trita Parsi love Iran more than he hates the IRI, when he does not give a damn about the plight of human rights in Iran nor about the complete destruction of Iran's economy? Is this love of Iran?

2. Trita Parsi accuses those who criticize him as being extremists, monarchists or MKO. He does not like to be criticized. When he is, he accuses the critic of this and that. Why?

3. Why Trita Parsi's sudden jump to the human rights bandwagon during the June of 2009 events, deflated so quickly?

4. Why Mr. Parsi is entitled to strongly criticize and even accuse some individuals of being this and that, but he himself engages in intimidation campaigns against his critics?

5. Mr. Parsi claims he is not an Iranian political leader. Good! Is he willing then to explain his relations with Tehran UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PREJURY? Yes or No?

6. If NIAC sends "strong messages" against war to the US Congress, why can't it send similarly strong messages about Human Rights violations in Iran?

Sahimi:

Question for you: Is it true that you received a Pahlavi scholarship from saazmaane nirooye atomi to come and study in the US? If so, in some woods, they call this "Ham az toobreh khordan ham az akhoor."

This Farsi expression matches well with you in another way. You are a devote Moslem who firmly believes in Shariati views. Yet in one of David ET's blogs, you dared to call yourself a "true secularist"!! Again, you want both the toobreh and the akhor.

Yeap, you are a true secularist, and Bush junior was a closet Moslem. roo ke nist. sange paast.

onlyIran, solution(s)

One answer that fits the sequence pattern in an interesting way is 312211. Your answer may also fit a pattern, though a different one. For example, the sequence 1,2,3 may be followed by 4 because it is simply the next number or it could be followed by 5 because each number is the sum of the pervious two numbers.I'm curious to know what pattern you recognized in the sequence that led to your solution. Bottom line, we each deduce different results from the same data set and each maybe right in its own way depending on how we perceive the pattern. Hence the relevance of the puzzle to conspiracy blogs such as this one.

This is waste of time (1001 Arab. nights never-ending questions)

As soon as we provide answers to Dr. Kazemzadeh, he dismisses them as coming from NIAC website, which by the way, shows transparency of NIAC about all these allegations with members as well the the general public. 

We quote Eli Lake's article and Dr. Kazemzadeh tells us that he has a different take on the article.  And yet Dr. Kazemzadeh quotes Eli Lake's article as the truth in his allegations --> and now that he is getting desperate, he switches 180 degrees back to allegations of NIAC being an IRI agent with an 11 point questionnaire.  Professor ...... This is not an exam, and we are not your students.  And, besides, it seems to me that the answers are rigged with more questions.

If NIAC is a triple agent, as someone eluted to, vis-à-vis, Saudi/US/IRI connection, then maybe we should have NIAC on our side.  And, may be you should form your own advocay group and apply for grants.  And, when you end up in a no-name college, politicians in DC / media folks ignore you and your grants get rejected, come up here on IC, bitch & moan and devise a 1001 Arabian nights questionnaire.  And, maybe you and Arash Irandoost's organization (PDMI) should join forces for an impressive grand total of 2 coelition members.

Israel's Business Hours (LOL)

Pirouz joon

Please get your facts right darling. According to our great scientist Mammad VOA, BBC, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc etc,  Fred is present on this site 24/7 and then you come up with another allegation that he only works during the Israel's business hours. Well, here are the Israeli working hours (local time) which proves you wrong I am afarid because Fred does work on Sabbath as well as on Saturdays! I think you should keep taking your pills at the right time deary or you  could come up with such laughable errors. 

How is the motorcycle behaving these days? Be careful the anti-delusional drugs and driving do not go well together.

Throughout the year, other than on holidays, most businesses/offices are open on the following days:
Stores:
Sundays - Thursdays 08:00 - 19:00
Fridays  -                  08:00 - 14:00
(some stores close in the afternoon between the hours 13:00 - 16:00)
Offices:
Sundays - Thursdays 08:00 - 19:00 (continuously)
Fridays (closed)
Saturdays - all businesses are closed on Saturdays apart from
restaurants, coffee bars, cinemas and shopping centers near the large
cities.

//www.worldwide-tax.com/israel/isrbusiness.as...

FR

Sorry - you forgot to ask @ Namazi's uncles' friend's sister!

.

Well, there have been more

Well, there have been more than one person who has claimed to know the exact identity of the "Fred" effort. But they haven't provided it.

I believe more than one person is behind the effort, judging by the varying writing types. And with its pro-Israel advocacy, coupled with its blog posts performed during Israeli working hours, put 2 and 2 together and you get 4. Know what I mean?

But ultimately, Massoud K's post is a time waster. There are two types of organizations that seek to discredit NIAC. One composed of Iranian exiles envious of the influence NIAC has managed to gain, the other is the Israel lobby. 

My biggest concern with Parsi is that he isn't an American citizen, yet is the leader of an Iranian-American organization. But this isn't enough for me to take away my support for the most influential IA organization advocating against a US war with Iran. That's a bottom line. The rest is stereotypical in-fighting and intrigue so prevalent within the ranks of the most undesirable elements of the older Iranian-American exile community.   

Only Iran

Only Iran,

Your point is valid. It is called hypocrisy. If Reza Pahlavi or a group they do not like went to the CIA and shared information or analysis, and was sent around by the State Department, then many of these same individuals who support TP would have posted blog after blog condemning Reza Pahlavi. But if the same action is done by a person or group they support, then that very same action is praised (or not condemned).

Basically, if they like the person or group, WHATEVER thing this person/group does is supported. And if they do not like another person/group, that person/group would be strongly condemned for doing the exact same thing!!!!!!!!!!

MK

Moosir va Piaz

so which is it?

by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:03 AM PDT

Trita works for the CIA? Trita works for the iranian regime? Maybe trita is a tripple agent actually working for the Saudi government? haters gonna hate. haters cant seem to make up their minds about which talking points to use

MK: Logically speaking, one person or group could be working for two different governments. For example, Chalabi was working with both the U.S. government and the fundamentalist regime. Hamid Karzai has been getting money from both the U.S. government and the fundamentalist regime. The proverb "ham az toubreh mikhoreh ham az akhur" is about such behaviour.

Paraphrasing you, let me ask you: Chalabi was working for the U.S. or the fundamentalist regime? So which is it? Haters cant seem to make up their minds about which talking points to use.

My answer is that Chalabi was a self interested person who worked for many governments.

I do NOT have facts. I have some perceptions and opinions and hypotheses. I am asking questions.

MK

responses

Ari,

Based on YOUR words, YOU want to work for the CIA, but they do not want you.

:-)

MK

==================================

Vildemose jaan,

I am glad you liked the blog and the arguments.

Best,

Masoud

========================================　

Red Wine aziz,

You are most welcomed, my friend.

Best,

Masoud

=====================================

MM,

You posted NIAC’s response to Lake article. The post contained 6 issues and was about 1,054 words. Not a single word on Lake’s statement that Dr. Trita Paris provided lecture for the CIA. Do you realize that the CIA is the main SPY agency? So far, you have failed to produce any statement from NIAC stating that the Lake statement on Parsi providing his information or analysis for the CIA is false. Do you think, therefore, it is reasonable to accept that in fact Dr. Trita Parsi did present his stuff for the CIA?

Please do not change the subject. Based on available evidence, was Lake correct that Parsi provided information or analysis to the CIA?

MK

11 Questions for Mammad Regarding NIAC Connection to IRI

Dear Mammad,

I do NOT know much about NIAC. You know a zillion times more. I have 11 specific questions.  I would be gratefull if you would answer these questions. I am willing to change my perceptions of NIAC if your answers are convincing. Almost all of them are factual questions and a simple yes or no would work.  The later questions are logical inferences and/or interpretation.

1. Is it true or false that a person with the name Siamak Namazi was among the top leaders of NIAC? Please simply write whether Siamak Namazi was or was not one of the top leaders of NIAC.

2. It is true or false that Siamak’s brother, (Babak Namazi) was top official of Atieh Bahar company in Iran?

3. Is it true or false that Siamak Namazi’s sister (Pari Namazi) and her husband Mr. Bijan Khajepour were top officials of the Atieh Bahar company?

4. Is it true or false that Atieh Bahar was one of the top (if not THE TOP) company in IRI connecting, helping and consulting foreign corporations with opening operations in Iran?

5. Is it possible to have such operations like those of Atieh Bahar and have no major relationships with high officials of the Islamic Republic regime?

6. Did Atieh Bahar have a relationship with Rafsanjani’s group? Please either yes or no.

7. Did Atieh Bahar have a relationship with other top official of the regime? Please either yes or no.

Please correct me if my assertion is wrong.

8. If Siamak Namazi was among the top leaders of NIAC, and his family members (Babak Namazi, Pari Namazi, and Bijan Khajepour) were the top officials of Atieh Bahar, does it logically follow that this constitutes a connection between NIAC and the regime officials?

9. Please correct me if I am wrong: If Atieh Bahar is connected to Rafsanjani’s group, does it logically follow that NIAC is connected to the Rafsanjani faction of the regime?

If the above observations are false, please say so. I will accept your statement. But if the above observations are correct, would it be possible to think that

10. If NIAC was able to get rid of the U.S. sanctions against the IRI, do you think these individuals (Trita Parsi, Bijan Khajepour, Siamak Namazi, Babak Namazi, and Pari Namazi) could make huge amounts of money in making connections between American companies and the Iranian officials?

11. In your opinion, is it reasonable or it is irrational to think that a possible motive for NIAC officials (e.g., Trita Parsi and Siamak Namazi) was for personal financial gain?

I look forward to reading your expert answers. I do not know much about the people in NIAC and would appreciate your information and analysis. I have some impressions and perceptions based on the very little I have seen and I will be glad to change them if your answers are convincing.

Best regards,

Masoud