NUCLEAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Masking Motives
12-Nov-2010
When Trita Parsi founded the National Iranian American Council in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, he hoped to give a voice to Iranians in the United States who condemned the terrorist attacks as vehemently as most natural-born Americans did.
In the years since, the council has grown to include several thousand members and its role has taken on a more complex — and some say controversial — mission. Meanwhile, Parsi has become a celebrated author and leading scholar helping to bridge the cultural, philosophical and geopolitical divide between Americans and Iranians, and more broadly the East and West.
Last month, the Iranian-born Parsi, who holds a green card and lives in the Washington area, won the prestigious Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order, an honor bestowed as a result of his 2007 book, “Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.”
The award, previously granted to former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and other international heavyweights, gave Parsi more than just prestige. The author pocketed a $200,000 check, as well. Rodger Payne, a political science professor at the University of Louisville who administers the awards, said the judges thought the potential for conflict in the Middle East was one of the largest threats to world order and that Parsi’s book “addressed this problem very effectively.”
In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Diplomat, Parsi explained that a primary focus of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) in recent years has been helping to avert a potentially cataclysmic war between the United States and Iran. Toward the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, Parsi became increasingly alarmed that the United States was drifting toward war with the provocative Middle Eastern powerhouse. A draft resolution pending in Congress in late 2008 called on the U.S. president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran, and demanded that the president impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”
“It was about putting a Navy blockade on Iran, but if you committed this act of war you were starting a war,” Parsi said. “It was clever of the proponents of the resolution to not use the word ‘war’ or even use the word ‘naval blockade,’ but that’s what it amounted to.”
The NIAC quickly rallied a large coalition of groups, including Jewish-American organizations, to condemn the resolution as a precursor to war, and despite having the support of hundreds of members of Congress, House Resolution 362 eventually fizzled. A couple of months later, Americans elected Barack Obama president and gave a less hawkish Democratic Party control of both chambers of Congress.
“Everyone mobilized and the fight, I think to a very large extent, was in the media,” Parsi recalled. “Being able to bring that to the attention of the public through the media, it ended up not being considered. It essentially died in committee, even though it had a huge number of co-sponsors and some of the most influential organizations were pushing for it.”
Asked what the repercussions would have been had the resolution succeeded, Parsi said it would have been disastrous to the burgeoning pro-democracy movement in Iran.
“The first victims of a war would be the pro-democracy movement,” he said.
However, the Washington Times in 2009 raised questions about the effort in an article that challenged the legality of the NIAC, as an educational group, to lobby Congress on the issue.
Parsi disagreed in the article and argued that the group is permitted by law to engage in lobbying with up to 20 percent of its budget. He added that “educational activities and advocacy for general policies, such as opposition to war — as opposed to specific legislation — are not lobbying under the law.”
Today, the idea of a U.S. military offensive against Iran — especially with American troops still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and a fresh round of international sanctions against Tehran having just been passed — seems far less imminent, although the possibility remains on the table, especially as Iran presses forward with its nuclear ambitions and Israel remains adamant that it won’t allow a nuclear-armed Iran to happen on its watch. Still, the United States seems to have quelled Israeli fears for now, arguing that there’s enough time for diplomacy before Iran makes what one senior administration called a “dash” for a working nuclear weapon.
For years, Iran has also encountered significant problems in enriching uranium — possibly the result of reported sabotage schemes by the U.S. and other Western powers. Moreover, American and European officials are hopeful that the wave of unilateral and multilateral sanctions passed this summer against Iran will bite and perhaps splinter the regime by choking off critical energy and financial investment.
Nevertheless, the fundamental deadlock hasn’t really budged: Western countries have repeatedly pressed Tehran to halt its sensitive nuclear program but Iranian leaders have refused, insisting that the country’s nuclear activities are designed for peaceful civilian purposes.
Parsi, whose family fled Iran to Sweden when he was 4 years old to escape the political repression of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic, remains dubious of Iran’s various nuclear claims.
“The Iranians want to have the option of being able to build a nuclear bomb in case the security environment radically deteriorates,” Parsi said. “But the consensus view, including inside the U.S. intelligence bureau, is that no such decision has been made. But they are moving toward having the capability of making a decision and that is sufficient to worry some countries in the region, and certainly to worry the United States. The question is what can realistically be done about it?”
Parsi adds that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, is somewhat problematic in the context of Iran’s stated nuclear ambitions.
“The bottom line is that enrichment and production of civilian energy is considered a right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a majority of countries support that perspective,” Parsi pointed out. “There is plenty of literature on this. The way the NPT is structured, because of Article 4, it creates a loophole for countries to get to the verge of a nuclear bomb, and do so completely legally, without being in violation of anything in the NPT.”
But the United States and other Western powers say Iran forfeited its NPT rights when it kicked out inspectors and closed off its nuclear program to the outside world.
Yet Parsi argues that weapons inspections — largely thrown aside as an option prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq — are the answer.
“What you can invest in is making sure you have maximum inspection and verification, and by doing that you have a guarantee that gives the international community confidence that there won’t be any weaponization,” he asserts.
But if that doesn’t work? Asked about the consequences of a U.S. military strike or invasion of Iran, Parsi shudders at the thought.
“The first effect you would see is a significant radicalization inside of Iran,” he predicted. “You will see those elements who have already tried to turn Iran into a military state being able to push forward with their agenda much more successfully than they have so far. It will give a pretext to the government to go out and completely crush the pro-democracy movement.
They have already done a significant amount of work on that front, but war would be giving them a gift from above when it comes to their ability to do so with even more ferociousness.”
Parsi also believes a war would have profound implications for the entire region, not just Iran.
“I think you would also likely see the Iranians escalate the war as much outside of their borders as possible,” he said. “They already have that as part of their defense doctrine. It would mean a significant destabilization of the region as a whole. I don’t think there are a lot of divergent views when it comes to these specific issues and repercussions of war.”
War, however, remains an option for Israel, which won’t rule out a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, even though most experts say such an attack would only delay the program — and could even speed it up. Although it’s estimated to have its own large cache of nuclear weapons, Israel views Tehran as an existential threat — and at a minimum won’t allow Iran to upset its military hegemony in the region.
To that end, Parsi believes Israel’s real worries are more practical than existential.
“Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability,” he wrote last year in the article “Netanyahu and Threat of Bombing Iran — The Bluff that Never Stops Giving?”
“The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel’s ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel’s military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans,” he argued. “Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time. Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel.”
Yet Parsi discounts the notion of a deep-rooted Israeli-Iranian divide, arguing that the idea “is very much tied to the general view that the Jewish population has been unwelcome in that region,” he said. “This is just simply completely historically false — the Jewish people and Iranians have very positive relations over the centuries, and they also started off the relationship on a very positive note when they first came into contact about 2,500 years ago.”
Parsi points out that “the only non-Jew in the Bible” who is elevated to the level of a prophet is Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire who freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
“Even during the early stages of the Israeli state, the relations tended to be very positive and driven by a very political and strategic basis,” Parsi explained. “The two countries were in a tough neighborhood and shared a lot of common threats — threats from the Soviet Union and threats from more nationalist Arab states. This collaboration extended to deep security and intelligence collaboration but also into other areas. It wasn’t always a very comfortable relationship, but it was a strong and robust relationship.”
Parsi said that even when the Iranian Islamic Republic emerged after the 1979 Revolution and Tehran was headed by a hostile anti-Israeli government, close collaboration with Israel continued, especially in the realm of arms sales to ensure Iran’s defenses against Saddam Hussein.
He suggested that the current antagonism between Israel and Iran is at least partly manufactured as part of a larger geopolitical strategy on each country’s part.
“Both of them have an interest in portraying their conflict as an ideological conflict,” Parsi said. “From the Israeli perspective, if this is viewed as an ideological conflict in the United States, that means the conflict is framed as the sole democratic Western power in the region against a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship — and the allegiance of the Western power is going to be pretty automatic.
“From the Iranian perspective, if you frame it for what it is, which is about Iran’s power ambitions or Iran’s desire to be recognized as a key player in the region, you’re not going to be able to attract a lot of Arab resources and sympathy or regional resources and sympathy to your cause,” Parsi continued. “But if you frame it as Iran is standing up for the honor of Islam, then suddenly you have the ability to attract a whole new set of actors who can be sympathetic and helpful to your cause. Both countries have a common interest in framing this issue in a way that can ideologically benefit them.”
All of which takes us to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s provocative and mercurial president and a persistent thorn in America’s side. Parsi claims the Iranian leader’s seemingly insane Holocaust denials and other anti-Semitic rants are calculated for political effect and domestic consumption.
“If the fight is with Israel, then it’s much more difficult for Arab states to side with the United States because siding with the U.S. would mean siding with Israel,” Parsi said. “This has had some effect on the audience that Iran is playing toward, which is the Muslim street — just as much as Israeli rhetoric about Iran being some version of a 1938 Germany has had some effect over here. Both sides are playing to their own audiences and having no consideration about how this plays out on the opposite side — and they have only managed to dig themselves deeper and deeper into the whole of conflict.”
Another problem with making the nuclear issue the centerpiece of the world’s interaction with Iran: It allows the regime to galvanize public support against foreign powers supposedly threatening the country, thereby diverting attention from the government’s own shortcomings and giving it an excuse to crush any challenge to its authority.
Parsi believes that Iran’s Green Movement, the pro-democratic political force that rose up to protest the country’s rigged elections last year, is in something of a dormant stage, but contrary to some reports, it’s still alive and well.
“I don’t think the movement is dead — it’s just not out on the street,” he said. “The underlying reasons for people being upset have not in any way or shape changed. You have more repression than before and you have more economic incompetence and corruption than before. What you do have at the same time is that some people have lost faith in the specific leadership of the movement. They had hoped the leadership would have been more bold or more effective, but the discontent is still there.”
However, a revolution won’t truly happen until it is clear that the alternative will be significantly better than the status quo — an assurance many pro-democracy Iranians don’t seem to have much confidence in at the moment.
“Mere discontent is not sufficient to rise up,” Parsi said. “You need to have some hope that your actions will lead to sustainable positive results. They want to have confidence that if they go out on the street and risk their life, they are not doing it to replace one bad system with another bad system.”
first published in The Washington Diplomat.
AUTHOR
Michael Coleman is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
MM - you simply don't know
by ayatoilet1 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:03 PM PSTMM - he is clearly in the video on Iranian.com and he was there when both Ahmadinejad and Mohtaki were in the room (and for one of their speeches), in Isfahan...I will find the video and give you the exact link. Its clearly there. If what you say is true, this haji says send him to Iran - because he sure doesn't belong in the US representing Iranian-Americans.
Stronger NIAC
by Ari Siletz on Fri Nov 12, 2010 07:30 PM PSTJewish-American organizations, to condemn the resolution as a precursor
to war, and despite having the support of hundreds of members of
Congress, House Resolution 362 eventually fizzled."
This is a common sense explanation for why NIAC has been under fire. The organization is standing firm between US guns and Iranians.
The trial by fire was to be expected and has dramatically strengthened NIAC in a very American way. During elections candidates sling mud at each other, often in unfair ways. But when it's all over there's little doubt left as to who has the better ideas, tighter organization and tougher hide.
حاجی چی میگی. سایه تریتا پارسی رو در ایران با تیر میزنند.
MMFri Nov 12, 2010 06:44 PM PST
Please provide references for your accusations.
Veiled Prophet
by ayatoilet1 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 06:29 PM PSTLook, I don't know how you developed a moral compass, but maybe somewhere someone has told you that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else does something bad, does not give you or Parsi Trita a license to do that same. Precendents are unacceptable excuses.
Lets reaffirm a simple point, the NIAC does NOT represent the Iranian American Community in this Nation - AND Trita Parsi is certainly not an elected representative of that community.
Secondly, that basically the NIAC is a business (dokoon). It is a vehicle for Trita Parsi to pay himself; and he has followed the money (which as we all know involves the IRI, who spends over $80 Million lobbying the US government) in the US - using entities like the NIAC and some of these Iranian sattelite TV stations.
The NIAC is a fraud, and maybe should be sued for false representations. They do NOT represent the Iranian American Commmunity in anyway. He is a fraud, he's not even American (he carries a Swedish passport) - how can he represent Iranian-Americans?
There is so much presented about his linkes to the IRI? I even saw a video on this website, with Trita Parsi shown, in full view during the Ahmadinejad meetings in isfahan this past year in the audience - invited to Iran as the regime's guest.
There has to be honesty and integrity in representing Iranian causes in the US. Where was the NIAC when the tea party crowd where spouting hatred against immigrants and muslims ...and Iranians? Where was or is the NIAC when the regime in Iran tortures, rapes, kills, pounds down on Iranians - and Obama was trying to appease them? Where was the NIAC when the regime handed over 188,000 sq km of Iranian territorry in the Caspian Sea? Where was the NIAC when Opium production hit 270,000 MT in Afghanistan with 2/3rds being shipped to Iran for the Iranian market? Where was the NIAC? Where was the NIAC? Where was the NIAC? When has he or the NIAC come out and said flat out that the regime is neither a republic nor islamic?
The days of the regime are numbered and with them his days are numbered too. Anyone who has drunk from the well of this regime will eventually die from the poison in their water. Khamenei was totally wrong, Iran has not been innoculated from toppling the regime, the war has just begun. We are the new generation, and we will fight harder, and more effectively than our parents did. We are fresh, vibrant and strong - real warriors - and we will win.
Iranians are a great nation, and it is just a matter of time.
ayatoilet1
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 12, 2010 03:11 PM PSTI basically agree with you about the name. NIAC is an inaccurate name. It most definitely does not speak for all Iranian American people. It does not even speak for all its members. Because not all members agree with all its positions.
However this is pretty common in the USA. We have the "Christian Coalition". Does it speak for all Christians? Of course not. We have the "UN". Does it speak for all nations? No. Therefore NIAC is just following their precedent.
great article
by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Fri Nov 12, 2010 02:46 PM PSTlet the facts speak for themselves, a list of NIAC accomplishments:
//iranian.com/main/blog/mm/sorry-mind-if-...
to Veiled Prophet of Khorasan (and NIAC)
by ayatoilet1 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 01:52 PM PSTIf Parsi formed the NIAC, why did he not call it Parsi's lobbying mafia - why did he name it after the Iranian American Community in this Nation? He does not represent us! He does not represent anyone. Who gave him the right to call it after the Iranian-American Community? If he represents anyone, then he should be elected... by that community. If he does not represent anyone, then he should clearly say so.
The question is do you understand the difference? If you claim you represent a group - then you need to be elected from that group. The irony of all this is that he has Swedish nationality - he is not even American. So how can he even claim to represent Iranian-Americans --- he is not one of them. Its a joke; and what is worse is that it is nefarious....when it ends up representing the positions of the IRI...and not even its members.
The organization needs to be super transparent, with clear membership records, open meetings, and clear financial records (open to everyone). Otherwise it is open to criticism.
Comeon - we are not stupid; nor will we allow ourselves to be manipulated this way. The IRI's days are numbered and TRITA's too with them. And again, he does not represent the Iranian-American Community in this Nation ...that is a mis-representation.
Simple reason why...
by ayatoilet1 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 01:43 PM PSTIn case it was not clear, many on these pages believe he is linked with the IRI - and in case you did not know the IRI kills, maims, tortures, otherwise gets rid of any opponent (anywhere).
But facts are facts - it does not matter who says them - facts are facts. Lets focus on facts and not personalities. The NIAC has pro-IRI positions. That is a fact.
Michael Coleman - very informative article
by MM on Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:23 PM PST.
QUESTION IS HOW HUCH MR.PARSI KNOWS ABOUT IRANIAN
by afshinazad on Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:34 AM PSTQuestion is not who is or who is not mr.parsi what is most important is how much he knows and aware of todays Iranian every day life and when was last time he traveled to Iran and met the people from cities and villeges and when was the last time he spoke to ordindery people to understand how much they are suffering from this regime and Green movement that he is talking about if he means Mousavi or the karoubi which are other side of coin in the islamic regime then I would say he is dead wrong,people did not come out for these people but they came out and showed the regime that they had it enough of repression. Regarding either american will attack Iran and will cause region go crazy it is nothing but scare tactic used by these people and if really once he could go talk to ordinary Iranian will find out that Iranian wish to get ride out these terrorist at any cost.people like mr parsi and the regime know that with attack of american that would be end of the regime and easy money and the party for them is over. I and every IRANIAN do not wish to be invaded or attacked and we all know what would be outcome of war and ofcourse all depends on Iranian people how much really educated and learned from past and freedom doesn't come without pain and it is not for free.
Dear Mehrdad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:45 AM PSTThank you for stating your position.
Over Nuke: I changed my mind and now think post IRI Iran *should* get nukes. The reason is that you only get respect with power. Just the other day Obama suggested India be in the "Permanent UN" thing. Why: because they got nukes. I do not trust the IRI with nukes. However a reasonable ala India government should have them.
Dear VPK,
by Bavafa on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:28 AM PSTMy hope is to support ideas that I agree and believe in, rather then the individuals that the idea comes from. I have much disagreements with Fesenjoon or at least the language that he uses to present his idea but that should not mean to disagree with him even though I believe it is true.
Case in point -
- I happen to agree on many issues with you (MEK, IRI, etc) yet we have our disagreements on other issues (Carter for instance) but this does not mean an automatic agreement or disagreement with every thing you say.
- I happen to agree on many issues with NIAC (preventing war against Iran), yet that does not mean a blind and unqualified support to that orgainzation on all of their activities.
Heck there are times that I even agree with Fred and I believe he is the most anti-Iran member of IC.
I hope this helps you understand about my approach.
Mehrdad
ayatoilet1
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:14 AM PSTParsi isthe president of NIAC because he formed it. NIAC is not a democracy it is a lobby group. Just like I may form a company and be its persident for life. We need to understand the difference.
NIAC does some good and may do some bad. Regardless it is simply not a democracy. All lobby groups function like this. If you like them then you may join. If not you don't have to. The only thing is to be clear they do not speak for ALL Iranian Americans. They speak for their membership. Within that context the members may or may not agree with a position. There is nothing nefarious about this. It is normal lobby practice in the USA. We need to keep this in mind and not expect NIAC to be something different.
Hass
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:10 AM PSTThe IRI elections are rigged by definition. It is impossible to have non rigged elections with the GC. As long as the get to "disqualify" candidates the elections are rigged. No need to go into detailed analysis of the returns. It is poisoned from the beginning.
In addition putting opposition leaders in jail also invalidates elections. Not to mention that the idea of VF also turns it to a sham. You want more?
Mehrdard
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:07 AM PSTI wonder what NIAC's position is on:
I bet they do not support those positions as I do not. That is why I find your support of one of the above at odds with your other positions.
Thanks to NIAC and their
by Bavafa on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:07 AM PSTThanks to NIAC and their effort on trying to prevent war against Iran
It is hardly any surprise to see unsubstantiated allegations here repeatedly wrapped in comments by supporters of warmongers (i.e. Fred) and the proxy of organizations such as AIPAC that have been pushing for war against Iranians.
As Abarmard pointed out, NIAC's recent survey has shown how they follow member's set goals and priorities and number of priority for the concerned Iranian-American community has been preventing and avoiding war against Iranians.
Mehrdad
Bullshit
by hass on Fri Nov 12, 2010 08:24 AM PSTThere's NO evidence at all that the elections were "Rigged" and Iran never "kicked out" any inspectors. In fact Iran has allowed more inspections that it is legally required or that other countries have allowed. Furthermore, the same people of Iran massively support their nuclear program.
Good sources and points Mr. James D
by Abarmard on Fri Nov 12, 2010 07:31 AM PSTThank you for your informative comment. Another interesting observation from a few critics of NIAC, or specifically Mr. Parsi, would be the tone as if Mr. Parsi has taken his position by competing unfairly against theirs! and stole NIAC and what it "was" "suppose" to be as an organization!!
Some individuals have shown during the years, that their anger to Mr. Parsi is more personal than methodological. How dare Mr. Parsi sits in the kingdom of NIAC while I remain at iranian.com ;)
Mr. Parsi has it right and I am in total agreement with all of his arguments in regard to Iran and Iranians. The latest result from members survey indicates that majority of NIAC members are in line with the organization's policies and approach to Iranian issues.
Learn for Yourself
by James D. on Fri Nov 12, 2010 07:00 AM PSTThank you ayatoilet1 for explaining why you want to see Trita's "organs pulled out":
"I say a naval blockade or even a war if it helps take down the regime in
Iran that is neither Islamic nor a republic - would be a good thing."
I agree the IRI is neither Islamic nor a republic, but your support for war (death and destruction) and desire to see another human being tortured says a lot about you.
Iranian.com has far too many trolls with an axe to grind, perfectly happy to accuse NIAC of lobbying for the Islamic Republic, and being a tool of the CIA, and smuggling unicorns into the US from Iran.
I don't know who has time to point out all the lies and halftruths that are hurled against NIAC by people seeking to defame for political reasons (or because they've only heard from the haters), so I encourage anyone who wants to know more to actually take a minute to look at the work it does.
NIAC's Policy Positions: //www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_policy_positions
NIAC's staff & board: //www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_staff_board
NIAC's accomplishments: //www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_accomplishments
Myths vs. Facts: //www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_myths_facts
BBC Persian Investigates Politically
Motivated Attacks Against NIAC (Video): //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYZc2EZdBic&feature=player_embedded
NIAC's advocacy campaigns: //www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Action_index
The results of last year's NIAC membership survey: //www.niacouncil.org/site/News2pageNewsArticle&id=6820
(Members such as myself got the results of this years survey yesterday. Nonmembers can see the results next week.)
And for good measure, a scientific poll of Iranian Americans, that show NIAC's positions are the positions of most Iranian Americans: //escholarship.org/uc/item/7qq8j257
It's sad that there are so many within the community who always want to tear everything down, but never build anything themselves. Read what NIAC stands for yourself, and if it is something you support, become a member. If it isn't, don't. It's really that simple.
Trita Parsi is known by many but no1 knows ANY of his defractors
by Anonymouse on Fri Nov 12, 2010 06:19 AM PSTEverything is sacred
Trita - President for Life like Idi Amin
by ayatoilet1 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 05:21 AM PSTWhy is Trita Parsi president for life of the NIAC? Why does this organization itself not have elections if it is proposing democratic reform in Iran? why are they indirectly supporting the Iranian government's agenda and not confronting their agenda? Why is it not also confronting US back room dealings with the Iranian government - and the core hypocracy in US-Iran relations (on both sides)?
The simple facts are that there is a lot of nonsense being discussed when it comes to the Nuclear issue with Iran; and it has now become a distraction. Why is no one talking about 2 Million heroin addicts in Iran (resulting from bumper poppy crops in afghanistan supported by US troops)? Why is no one talking about Organ trafficking by the Mullahs to the West (Iran is the only country in the world to legalize organ traficking - and it is run by two relgioius "charities" as a business)? Why did Parsi not even point out that (1) US sold Iran a reactor with plutonium in it (2) That US proliferates and sells enriched Uranium to the Israel (that is not a member of the NPT)? (3) That Iran is a shareholder in Eurodif (Europe's Nuclear Enrichment company) and a board member of the same ...I could go on and on.
The simple point is, Trita Parsi's narrative seems to miss a lot of key issues in it, that are somehow conveniently absent - and useful to the underlying people that are supporting him and the NIAC. This bullshit needs to stop.
Finally, I say a naval blockade or even a war if it helps take down the regime in Iran that is neither Islamic nor a republic - would be a good thing. The days of this regime are numbered - and with them Trita's days are numbered too.
The Award he should be given - is a prison term in Evin - with his organs pulled out by those same IRI torturers and sold. Then, maybe he will understan who he is dealing with and what they are doing to those poor students in Iran that have been conveniently captured and are being executed for their organs. He really has no idea what is truly going on.
Fluff piece
by Fred on Fri Nov 12, 2010 04:29 AM PSTThis sort of damage control does not answer the outstanding issues with the NIAC lobby. And until they come clean about all their dealings with Islamist Rapist officials, some of which have been exposed through legal action, none of this fluff pieces would work.