Political arena is not without its own share of “dirty jobs” and those figures who perform it.  A case in point is Iran Experts who are well paid to clean mullahs’ images and  spin their malignant intentions.  Examples are plentiful:

-          When the Mullahs’ plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador in Washington was exposed, their job was to blame the American warmongers for fabricating this fictional scenario designed to justify the military attack against Iran.

-          When the international atomic agency blamed the Mullahs for pursuing a nuclear weapons  program, their job was to blame Mossad for cooking fake intelligence designed to demonize the Mullahs and legitimize sanctions against Iran.

-          When Obama failed (repeatedly) in his friendly overtures toward Iran, they blamed Israel for imposing a deadline to end the negotiations.

-          And when the Iranian regime did something that even the most imaginative “Iran experts” could not justify, as it happened with the invasion of British embassy, these white collar dirty job performers use their cart blanche,  blaming a faction inside the regime, and hence acquit the regime as a whole.

There is however a huge difference between the TV show  “dirty jobs” and what these  ”Iran experts”  do.   The “dirty jobs”  depicted on the show are necessary  for the society, and those who do it are unsung heroes.  On the contrary, these Iran experts help the Mullahs to stay in power and make the world dirtier and more dangerous.

CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria’s trip to Tehran, his soft interview with Ahmadinejad, his friendly article about the Iranian regime and his advice to US administration to seek coexistence with the Mullahs have shocked many in the Iranian American community.

But Zakaria has just mimicked other pro-engagement  pundits who had travelled to Tehran, painted a rosy picture of the social and economic life in Iran, discovered that the regime has popular support, the nuclear program is supported by the majority of Iranians, the sanctions are futile, the people blame the hardship of sanctions on the US and finally, someone in the regime is ready to reach a deal with the US.

While in Tehran, Zakaria discovered that Ahmadinejad is a pragmatist and moderate politician whom US should consider as a genuine interlocutor:

“Within the context of Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad is the pragmatist. He has been trying to clip the wings of the clergy. His chief of staff has openly mused about having better relations with Israel. And over the years Ahmadinejad has made several moves on the nuclear front that, while imperfect, are serious opening bids for a negotiation.”

Zakaria affirms that the Iranians view Ahmadinejad as a moderate:

“The talk of the people I met with – the political charter – was of the rift between President Ahmadinjad and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameni. Now what is hard for most westerners to understand is that in this debate, in Iran, Ahmadinejad is the moderate. He has been trying to clip the wings of the clergy; he has advocated loosening up some of the restrictions on women, allowing them to attend football games, for example; he speaks of Iran’s pres-Islamic past with pride – something that is anathema to the clergy.”

Zakaria’s week long show ended with a déjà- vu advice to US administration to abandon pressure against the regime and seek coexistence with the Mullahs:

“What is our goal? Is it to overthrow the Iranian regime? Is it to make it cry uncle and give up its nuclear program?… Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That’s how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 1980s. Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.”

Although Zakaria’s week long media blitz seems futile and outrageous, it should be interpreted as a campaign by special interest groups that try to influence US policy with Iran and prevent harsher sanctions against the Mullahs.

Tehran’s terrorist plot, its efforts to highjack the Arab spring, its dangerous drive to acquire nuclear weapon and its predictable push to dominate Iraq after US will oblige the US administration to adopt a harsh and firm position toward Tehran. Eventually, the sanction of Iranian Central Bank and oil seems the next step to pressure Tehran.

This prospect  frightens the pro-appeasement circles in Washington and on top of them the big oil corporations. Zakaria’s show was simply about business.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/22/ahmadinejad-on-gadhafi-syria-alleged-plot-nuclear-weapons-and-americas-role/

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/23/zakaria-reflections-on-iran/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-deal-with-irans-nuclear-future-go-back-to-2008/2011/10/26/gIQADQyEKM_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-deal-with-irans-nuclear-future-go-back-to-2008/2011/10/26/gIQADQyEKM_story.html

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/23/zakaria-reflections-on-iran/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-deal-with-irans-nuclear-future-go-back-to-2008/2011/10/26/gIQADQyEKM_story.html

http://iraniansforum.com/index.php/washington-insight/311-fareed-zakaria-in-wonderland-

Kayvan Kaboli

On October 21, President Obama announced the US military’s full withdrawal from Iraq by end of this year. Consequently, the White House press conference was held and the media briefed on the withdrawal plan. At the press conference, the main questions were on the impacts of this retreat on the future of Iraq, US interests and Arab Springs.

Judging by public surveys in the US and around the world, President Bush’s invasion of Iraq is viewed as a disaster to US interests, regional developments and Iraqi people. Data and statistics alone show that in wild range of issues from economy to human rights, the Iraqi people suffer more under this regime compared to pre-occupation era.

The most catastrophic consequence of Bush’s blunder has been Iran’s growing grip on Iraq. Obama’s withdrawal will certainly increase Tehran’s influence as some Iranians jokingly say that on January 1st. 2012, Ghassem Soleiman, the commander of Iran’s Guds forces will be officially crowned as the new king of Iraq. In the crowning ceremony, he would thank Bush and Obama for sacrificing US soldiers and wasting trillions of American tax dollars to overthrow a secular regime and hand over Iraq to the Islamic Republic.

While Bush should be blamed for the invasion and the resulting mess in Iraq, Obama had many options in hand to manage US presence and postpone a total withdrawal. But the negotiations with Iraqi government failed because the administration’s decision makings are apparently driven by the next year Presidential election. Therefore, Obama prefers leaving Iraq and avoid potential confrontations with Iranian proxies in Iraq, a prospect that could severely affect his electoral calculations. Iran and its Iraqi proxies knew about Obama’s weakness and therefore remained firm and pushed US out of Iraq.

The irony is that the withdrawal plan is announced just 10 days after President Obama exposes Iranian regime terror plot in Washington. Obama’s electoral calculation could prove totally wrong as the emboldened Iranian regime will certainly use its growing influence in Iraq to undermine the Arab spring and jeopardize US interests. Empowering Iran’s influence in Iraq can take serious turns in next 12 month that might cost Obama the election. In fact, empowering Iran in the region contradicts US policy of isolating and containing Iran and could negatively affect Obama’s image as a weak President who retreated from the Iranian challenge. Obama is completing the catastrophe in Iraq that has started with George W Bush.

The head of Iranian Melli Bank, Mahmoud-Reza Khavari, has reportedly escaped to Canada after an embezzlement scandal was discovered in the Islamic Republic. Khavari’s escape raises a more serious questions about Western attitude to grant special treatment to IRI’s high ranking officials.

Officially, Khavari has been heading the largest bank in Iran that is targeted by international sanctions. The Melli Bank along with other financial institutions  are involved in regime’s terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapon. However, Khavari’s involvement in such activities has not been a hurdle to obtain Canadian citizenship that facilitated his escape from Tehran and settling in North America.

Khavari is among many other Iranian officials who have moved to the West and started a new political and business career here, a career that by no mean is different from what they pursued before: assisting the Iranian regime and its various Mafia kind factions.

There is two reasons for granting VIP status to these Iranian officials; first, Western corporations seek their help to arrange business deals with the Iranian regime. Second, political circles especially those who seek friendship and engagement with Tehran, will use them as a bridge with the regime and its factions.

These corporations and political circles will provide protection and assistance to these newly arrived officials who in return will become important factors to influence and shape Western policies with Iran.

There are many examples of former Iranian officials who easily immigrated to the West (especially to the US) and started a lobby activity to promote appeasement policy with the Iranian regime.

Khavari’s scandal is not uniquely about his past association with a terrorist and barbaric regime but more importantly, is about his new career in Canada (in case he does not return) to assist the Mullahs’ regime and undermine the interests of Canadian and Iranian people.

http://iraniansforum.com/index.php/washington-insight/289-thieves-but-vip-guests

· Ghezelbash is manages Statoil relation with the Iranian government.  (See this email)

· Prior to joining the oil giant, Ghezelbash worked at Atieh Bahar company in Tehran. (See this email exchange between Ghezelbash and Siamak Namazi, Atieh Bahar’s director)

· Atieh Bahar helps multinational companies to do business with the Iranian regime (see this series of documents)

· Atieh Bahar and Namazi family helped Trita Parsi to create his lobby in US. Parsi was paid by Atieh Bahar. (See this series of documents)

· To get familiar with Ghezelbash, Parsi and Washington circles, see this email

· Ghezelbash’s email to Talebi:

She declared:

“With the decision made to sanction Assad and other top thugs in Syria, I see no reason why the Administration would continue to give a free pass to Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the so-called ‘Supreme Leader,’ and the regime’s foreign minister. “The Iranian and Syrian regimes are partners in crime, and the U.S. should apply the same sanctions to both dictatorships. Both regimes brutally oppress their own citizens, and the Iranian regime is helping the Syrian regime with its ongoing bloody crackdown. Both regimes are sponsoring violent extremist groups and pursuing unconventional weapons and missile capabilities to threaten the U.S., our ally Israel, and other free nations. Neither regime has the legitimacy to rule.“The U.S. and other responsible nations must start by directly sanctioning the highest ranking Iranian regime officials. And with the UN General Assembly convening in New York in weeks, the U.S. must unequivocally deny all Iranian and Syrian regime officials access to U.S. soil.”

Lehtinen’s statement highlights the failure of Obama’s policy with Iran that was well exposed in his refrain to firmly support the democratic uprising in 2009-2010. As we know, he focused on futile negotiations with the Mullahs and therefore, in the middle of Iranian uprising, Obama sent his envoys to meet with Supreme Leader’s delegates in Geneva to reach a “historic” bargain over the nuclear program. (See “The Pro-engagement Lobby and US Failure with Iran“)

A root cause of this failure is the persistent efforts by various interest groups to redirect the American policy to benefit them. These groups that favor engagement and coexistence with Mullahs, are assisted by some “Iran experts” who have effectively portrayed a delusionary description of the Iran’s internal power structure and status.

Ironically, the same people who prior to the Iranian uprising advised Obama to coexist with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, remained the administration’s privileged interlocutor after the uprising. In a matter of seconds, they turned “Green movement” advocates and continued to advise the administration to not support the movement, continue the failed policy of engagement and avoid the possibility of regime change in Iran.

If Obama wants to reevaluate his failed policy with Iran, he should start to hear from the Iranians and opposition groups that  in large majority support a regime change by the Iranian people.

In a recent report titled: “The pro-Tehran lobby and its anti-Israeli crusade“, it was explained how Trita Parsi and NIAC present their lobby as a crusade against Israel and AIPAC. The Jewish state is depicted as “the spoiler of Iran-US friendship, the sole force behind the sanctions against Iran, and the bullying force that dictates US policy. Iran, a victim of Israel, seeks its legitimate place in the region and …..”

Recently, a new series of NIAC’s internal documents were released during a defamation lawsuit brought against Hassan Dai. One of these documents is an astonishing email written by NIAC’s community director Babak Talebi in which he illustrates the depth of deception and public opinion manipulation to pale the Iranian regime’s ant-Semitism. This email by itself is a vindication of all allegations about NIAC’s pro-Tehran lobby enterprise.

The issue: Ahmadinejad’s controversial declaration against Israel

On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad’ made a speech to the ”World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran and according to IRNA, the regime’s news agency, he declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.⁽¹⁾ The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.”

Immediately, pro-Tehran advocates who present Iran as a victim of Israel launched a campaign to claim that Ahmadinejad’s declaration was intentionally mistranslated by hawkish groups in US to demonize Iran and pave the road for a military invasion of the country. Trita Parsi wrote in his book that “Ahmadinejad’s statement has generally been mistranslated to read, “Wipe Israel off the map.” Ahmadinejad never used the word “Israel” but rather the “occupying regime of Jerusalem,” which is a reference to the Israeli regime and not necessarily to the country.” (See the report)

Useless to say that translation was made by the Iranian regime itself and Ahmadinejad has clarified time after time that he meant Israel and not the regime as he repeatedly asked the Jews to find a new country in Alaska or Europe.

Talebi’s email

This email is an exchange among NIAC’s West coast board members who discuss the negative impact of Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli declarations. Talebi explains that they should not solely insist on mistranslation argument because day after day Ahmadinejad repeats the same thing and shows his hatred of Israel. Therefore, the public opinion and US politicians do not buy this argument.

Talebi suggests a genuine way to reframe the issue and coax the public: “as we discussed in the Seminar, in order to frame your issue successfully, you have to “go fishing with the bait that the fish likes, not the bait that you like” In other words, Talebi is trying to find an argument that the public opinion (fish) could bite and gets trapped in the net. The emails needs no comment:

“Mitra is 100% correct that this (AN declaration to wipe Israel off the map) was a mistranslation – whether in the official Iranian press, or intentionally on the part of the US media is a point that can (and is) argued… but what is important for today is to realize that it is now (almost) set-in-stone and the fact is that every time Ahmadinejad speaks he only confirms the mis-translation by repeating similar lines.  The point is that for both the US public AND the US media, the interpretation of this utterance is ‘believable’ and it would require a HUGE political force to change that mindset – and EVEN IF accomplished, it would not challenge or change the perception of Ahmadinejad as anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.

So – a far more effective response with an actual chance at success and at stemming the possibility of this type of mentality leading to conflict is to ‘frame’ the issue in a different manner.  Arguing that Ahmadinejad is irrelevant to actual Iranian foreign policy is one such example.  Arguing that EVEN IF Iran had an ‘intent’ to harm Israel it does not have the capacity or political will to do so.  Etc.

As we discussed in the Seminar, in order to frame your issue successfully, you have to “go fishing with the bait that the fish likes, not the bait that you like”.  Another words, arguments that convince us that Iran will not attack Israel (ie it has not attacked anyone in 150 years, Iranians love Jews, its just empty rhetoric) would not necessarily work with the audience we are trying to convince.”

1- “Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map”, IRIB News, October 26, 2005.

Click on image

During the Bush administration and because of his disastrous invasion of Iraq, the American “left” and anti-war movement became very active and organized grass root lobby networks to influence US foreign policy and prevent new hawkish adventures in the region.

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and its lobby partners in business circles, notably USA*Engage, joined the peace groups and gradually shifted their focus toward fighting the sanctions and pressure on Iran. (At the end of this article, you can find part of Trita Parsi’s  report to his lobby partners in Tehran, Siamak Namazi, an oil consultant and government associate to whom Parsi explains how to “use” the anti-war movement in a lobby in favor of friendship with Tehran.)

As a result, a large number of websites and radio stations have emerged that supposedly fight the neoconservative agenda but in reality are entirely defending the Mullahs’ policies. One of these websites is lobelog belonging to Jim Lobe and his Inter Press Service (IPS). The website is mainly focused on Iran issues and has couple of writers. Please go to this website where you can find daily articles and reports explaining the activities of “neoconservatives and warmonger” who are generally described as “Israeli right wing government allies” who try to “demonize the Iranian regime and therefore push Obama to a new war with Iran”.

In case a US politician criticizes Iran for fueling anti-American terrorism in Iraq, he is treated as naive or a neoconservative stooge. Iran’s nuclear program is described as peaceful, its regional policies as nationalistic and pragmatist, Iran’s grievance against US as entirely legitimate and the opposition groups that seek a regime change are presented as puppets of Israel or Iranian versions of Ahmad Chalabi.

Please get a tour of website and try to find anything that could distinguish this blog from an Iranian regime’s-run medium.

Interestingly, the website echoes NIAC’s points of views and supports its lobby. There is also one of Trita Parsi’s email discovered during the defamation lawsuit brought against Hassan Dai that sheds light on the relation between the blog and parsi.

In this email, Parsi asked his partner in Tehran (oil consultant and government partner) Siamak  Namazi to find a journalist in Tehran to write for IPS and be paid $150 per article.  Namazi was partner and managing director at Atieh Bahar who arranged business deals between the government and multi -national corporations. (To study the relation between Parsi and Atieh Bahar please see Gallery one, Gallery two).

NIAC internal document: Parsi’s report to his lobby partners in Tehran

In 2007 Parsi sent a report to his partner in Tehran and explained the activities of anti-war groups and how they could be morphed to an anti-sanction lobby. The report is titled the “lobby groups”:

“As of early 2005, Washington’s heated rhetoric over Iran has attracted the attention of a variety of interest groups eager to prevent the escalation of tensions in the Middle East and the prospects of a war between the US and Iran. These groups have managed to build unprecedented support in Congress in favor of dialogue and against military action among progressive Democrats as well as conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill.

This coalition of pro-dialogue and anti-war entities consists of a diverse group of organizations ranging from arms control organizations, to Iranian American organizations, to religious groups. Key players in this coalition are the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which coordinates a coalition of approximately 50 organizations, MoveOn and the National Iranian American Council.

While these groups have focused extensively on passing measures to reduce the risk for war with Iran, little attention has been paid to efforts to intensify sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, while a momentum exists for anti-war measures, no comparable opportunity exists currently for an anti-sanctions campaign. Nor is the coalition of disarmament, religious and progressive groups best suited to take on this issue. Here, the absence of pro-business interests on Capitol Hill active constitutes a key point of advantage for AIPAC.”

In his report, Parsi explained the importance of bringing in the pro-trade lobby group and notably USA*Engage:

“Pro-Business groups

With the exception of USA Engage, American businesses and oil companies have after September 11 next to eliminated their efforts on Capitol Hill in favor of greater trade and contacts with Iran.

USA Engage is a coalition of approximately 500 major US companies which has retained a distant interest in the Iran issue, though the coalition has devoted little resources towards promoting trade or preventing new sanctions from being imposed. In particular, the recently imposed UN sanctions have granted the sanctions track with Iran new legitimacy and made efforts to oppose such measures on trade grounds more difficult.

However, initial efforts are currently being made to make align the trade groups with the pro-dialogue coalition and frame sanctions an initial step that invariably will lead to war. If such a coalition of pro-trade and pro-dialogue groups can be formed, the current momentum for sanctions may be significantly hampered.“

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is called  by the Iranian regime’s press as  “Iranian lobby in US” “. However, NIAC’s reaction to two American hikers sentence in Tehran,  suggests that it acts like a PR firm for the Iranian regime, formulating and marketing  the Mullahs’ hostage taking in a way that the public opinion and US politicians respond positively to the their blackmail.

In an article posted by NIAC, Reza Marashi, a NIAC employee and Parsi’s assistant reacted to the hikers’ plight in Tehran and tried to nail down the issue in three points:

Point one: Despite the regime’s hard-liners , moderates (i.e. Ahmadinejad) try to engage the US:

“Their sentence is the latest installment in a series of political football matches between the various factions inside of Iran. Recall that it was last September when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attempting to score points for himself just weeks before coming to New York to address the UN General Assembly, announced an imminent release for the third hiker, Sara Shourd.  But Ahmadinejad’s political opponents in the Judiciary attempted to block the initiative and prevent any corresponding political capital Ahmadinejad hoped to gain”

Point Two:   raise the hope that the Supreme Leader could pardon the hikers:

“there remains a glimmer of hope that the Supreme Leader would issue  an edict releasing the hikers.

Trita Parsi of course chipped in the con game as well:

“There have been cases in the past where the courts issue a shockingly high verdict in the beginning. Then, by pardoning, they try to come across as showing leniency…… It is possible that this is what is happening.”

Point Three:  The regime’s action is a result of tension between the two countries. Therefore, a more friendly policy toward Iran would resolve the impasse:

“If (US-Iran) relations had been halfway normal this would have been resolved far earlier.”

Obviously, there is no mention that the “hostage taking” has been an integral part of the regime’s behavior in the past three decades. Each and every time a ransom was requested. For NIAC and Parsi, the world’s only response should be a more friendly policy toward the Mullahs. A shocking example of Parsi’s role in formulating the regime’s blackmail could be seen in another hostage taking case against the Iranian Jews.

Trita parsi and the Iranian Jews

In 2000, the Iranian regime jailed and sentenced 13 Iranian Jews to long prison terms, who allegedly were Israeli spies.  At that time, Parsi had started his first lobby organization called “IIC” and released a statement in which he vehemently  attacked Senator Schumer, Congressmen Sherman and several others for being Machiavellian, opportunist and power hungry simply because they urged a firm US  response to the Mullahs blackmail. Parsi’s remarks need no commentary from me:

” Some Congressmen are willing to go to any lengths to get reelected. Even if that means fabricating lies, making racists remarks on the House floor and jeopardizing the lives and well being of their co-religionists in other countries. Congressman Brad Sherman, Congressman Peter Deutsch and Senator Charles Schumer are the latest addition to this sad list of power hungry Machiavellians.  Interpreting the import of judicial decisions and other development in Iran may have much to do with “the eye of the beholder”. The trial of the Iranian Muslims and Jews accused of spying for Israel ended with relatively lenient sentences considering the seriousness of the charges. But on the other hand, the sentences can also be seen as extremely harsh mindful of the unreliability of the Iranian judiciary system.

Nonetheless, the activities undertaken by opportunists such as Congressman Sherman have not helped the accused. On the contrary, the more he uses this sad incident to get reelected, the worse the fate of these individuals becomes.

Sherman, Deutsch and Schumer have separately introduced new amendments that would reverse President Clinton’s decision to lift sanctions on food, medicine and Iranian carpets. Again, a combination of opportunistic tendencies and lack of creativity has caused these politicians to resort to economic sanctions as a campaign and foreign policy tool.

The biggest losers in this cynical campaign are American taxpayers, the Iranian people and not the least, the Iranians charged with spying. Let us not forget that the trial is continuing, since the accused have appealed. Further politicizing the trial at this sensitive stage only serves to entrench the position of all parties, rendering a solution more difficult.

If Congressman Sherman truly were concerned about the well being of Iranian Jews, he would not have resorted to sanctions. More than twenty years of sanctions on Iran have only benefited the anti-democratic and anti-American elements within the Iranian power establishment; the very same people who staunchly oppose the state of Israel. But imposing sanctions has also benefited Congressmen up for reelection, of which Congressman Sherman is all too aware.”

Obviously, the hostage takers could have not written a better script to defend their action and explain the ransom they seek to obtain.