Smearing the NIAC
Al Jazeera / Taymoor Nabili
16-Nov-2009 (one comment)

But it's tempting to suspect that lobbying isn't the real issue here, and that the that paper is rather more concerned with what it describes as the NIAC's "emergence as a major player in Washington and leading voice for engaging Iran and ultimately lifting U.S. sanctions". Indeed, it's easy to conclude from the tone of the piece and of the developing conversation surrounding it, that the real mission here is to paint Parsi as a tool of the Islamic Republic and therefore an enemy of America.

After all, the Washington Times - and the voices that have lined up to support it on this issue - don't have a problem with lobbyists per se. (Or indeed with charismatic leaders. The Washington TImes was founded by Sun Myung Moon and is funded by the Moonies.)

No, this constituency is among the staunch supporters of the lobby system, particularly of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the biggest lobby groups of them all. Any criticism of that group is decried as de facto anti-semitism, and its right to buy influence on Capitol Hill is sacrosanct.

To express anything less than hysterical condemnation of all things Iranian, however, calls forth a different response.

recommended by Q



Do you want to have your minds blow?


Remember Boy Ney? The guy who was prosecuted by the Bush Administration (for being corrupt)?

It turns out he wanted to engage with Iran but the Bushies and neocons didnt like what he was doing:  //

 And now NIAC (and particularly John Limbert who recently got a top post at state department) are being bombarded with accusations and character assassinations because they want to engage, not bomb Iran.

 From Andrew Sullivans blog:

"The campaign against NIAC should be seen for what it is — an attempt
to delegitimize any Iranian-American voices that are insufficiently
hawkish for the neocons’ liking. Hawks in Washington and Jerusalem are
faced with the inconvenient fact that few Iranians, even those harshly
critical of the regime, desire to see their country get bombed or
invaded, or for Iran’s most vulnerable citizens to die under the weight
of sanctions that do nothing to help the cause of the Green Movement.
Hence the attempt to portray any Iranian who opposes sanctions or war
as a stooge of the regime — and the hawks’ recent turn against the
Iranian opposition itself, for refusing to play Chalabi and tell them
what they want to hear. As the battle over Iran continues in
Washington, it is likely that the attacks on NIAC and other dovish
voices in the Iranian-American community are only going to get worse
rather than better," - Daniel Luban.