Doc's Talk: Iranian Regime's Lobby Becomes Active in Congress

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Iranian Regime's Lobby Becomes Active in Congress

http://www.iranian-americans.com/2008/11/366.html

Next Tuesday, on November 18, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) will host a congressional briefing. Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) and Representative John Tierney (D-MA) are amongst the speakers. They will be talking about the new president's policy towards Iran. t is deeply concerning that a discredited group within the Iranian-American community, with blatantly obvious connections with the Islamic Republic, should be allowed to freely influence Washington's political circles to the detriment of the American peoples' and ultimately, the world community's interests. It is also shocking and difficult to explain that a group labeled by the Iranian regime as the "Iranian lobby" could so easily penetrate the US Congress.

NIAC has been trusted, supported and promoted by the Iranian regime and this is the root cause of its deep discreditability within the Iranian community. Nevertheless, some American interest groups have invariably promoted such organizations to influence the US policies towards Iran.

NIAC was founded and grew strong during President Bush's time in the office. This was mainly due to the disconcerted policies and illusory hopes adopted by his administration for engaging with Tehran which inevitably prepared favorable grounds for the formation of such groups in the first place.

We, the Iranian-Americans believe that only our own mobilization could stop the spread of the Iranian regime's web of influence in the US. This is the first and most essential step to defend the interests of our community, protect our interests as Americans and defend our compatriots in Iran.

Regarding the contents of this event, once again, the speakers will argue that the time is now rife to engage with the Iranian regime. They will be pushing for all the sanctions to be lifted, and will be arguing that incentives should be augmented. The organizer of the Tuesday event, Trita Parsi, as the moderator and president of NIAC will be trying to persuade the forum what he has been trying to achieve for a long time; that the US should accept the Iranian dominance in the Middle East. In an article in Huffington Post of April 22, 2008 Parsi wrote: "Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?" Then he emphasized that: "Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region."

NIAC and its president are fully aware that the US engagement with the Islamic Republic for the purpose of submission to Tehran's nuclear or regional ambitions is totally out of reach. What they are really set out to achieve, as they have been for a considerably long time, is to buy more precious time for Iran to achieve its nuclear ambitions and hence the regional supremacy and hegemony.

2 comments:

Babak Talebi said...: In regards to the dishonest drivel written above:

Your purported attempt to "tell the truth, present corroborated facts, and provide opinions based on sound analysis" stumbles face-first into the wall of reality in an unflattering way.

in this uncorroborated drivel of vicious attacks, using the same discredited tactic of labeling anyone you disagree with as 'agents of the Islamic Regime', you sound much like the maligned McCain supporters who latch onto their warped conceptions of Obama as a 'terrorist' and an 'Arab' out of ignorance and an unenviable slide into irrelevance.

All I can say of you is that I pity the dearth of your intellectual heft and the dishonesty with which you approach these weighty issues of geopolitical and humanitarian problems.

Not to have simply cast aspersions on your character, I will also ridicule your baseless assertions:

1) NIAC has never and will not ever take any money, direction, or suggestion from the Iranian Government. We are, and always have been the voice of our 30,000 supporters and members who fund our efforts, and the voice of the MAJORITY of the Iranian American (and American) population which opposes the 'regime change' mantra of fossilized and increasingly irrelevant 'opposition' groups which remain mired in the ideological battles of the 1970s.

2) The Iranian American population, like any other group of people, is NOT monolithic. Thus we fully accept, appreciate, and expect that some will disagree with us and our point of view. However, if those who disagree with us wish to have any legitimacy, they should learn to debate and argue on the merits of our positions and analysis rather than trading on baseless and legally actionable accusation and innuendo.

3) Our views and positions are fully transparent and our reasoning offered for public debate. We hold that there are very narrow options available to the world community, the US, and concerned Iranian Americans alike - that is to say, confrontation (war or proxy war), containment (sanctions and isolation), or engagement (diplomacy and duologue). Increasingly it has become obvious to all but the most ideological elements that the first two options will not only fail to bear results, but have also been counter-productive and have resulted in a stronger and more entrenched political and theological elite in Iran. The changes, humanitarian and democratic alike, that are necessary for the future of Iran and its people will only spring forth from within the country - and our role from abroad is to help create the atmosphere and conditions for THEM to create the changes from within.

4) The reason NIAC has the legitimacy on Capitol Hill that you and your ilk so crave and can not achieve, is that our membership and creed has internalized the values of pluralism, reason, and logic that you have yet to comprehend. Senators from both parties, organizations of all stripes, and even those who disagree with our prescriptions respect NIAC here in DC because our discourse is one of reasoned logic - a method I invite you to attempt.

Finally - I know that my comment is full of visceral dislike and contempt for you and your words. It should not surprise, as it is the same contempt in which I hold the Hezbollahi's of the regime, the bigots within the American populace, or the extremist of any and all faiths and ideologies. It is a contempt born of the methods you and your ilk use. Dishonest. Deceitful. Devoid of reason. And disrespectful of discourse.

IF you or your supporters ever chose to have a reasoned discussion on the issues at hand, if you ever chose to turn to honest discourse on the positions and prescriptions we offer. IF you ever chose to provide your own ideas rather than trying to tear down the ideas of others. THEN I would welcome a conversation and a debate on those ideas.

But until then, your methods deserve the contempt they engender, and will remain irrelevant on the progressive march towards solutions to the myriad problems facing the Iranian, American, and Iranian-American people the world over.

Babak Talebi

Full disclosure: I am one of the founders of NIAC, and until recently worked full time as a NIAC staff member in its DC office. The comments above are mine and mine alone.; 10:09 PM
GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...: Babek Talebi,

One of the tactics used, old and worn out but for some effective is to begin a response with character assassination-nice try!Talk about drivel-indeed!Then the next tactic is to link a current issue with one unrelated but one that renders emotion-again well done. I and our "kind" do not need your validation or invalidation-again nothing but words used by an individual unwilling to focus upon the issues stated within a post. A convenient diversion. We so enjoy first "cast aspersions on my character-of course you do not know me, nor do you know my point of view but this does not prevent you from name calling-another tactic meant to impress only your followers and draw contempt from those of us willing to ask critical questions.You see, any time we dare ask critical questions or draw attention to considerations we have about your positions, this is the kind of response you give-you have indeed shown us your true self and your honest positions. Your point #2 is correct-you are not monolithic yet your rant suggests if we, "my ilk" do not agree or accept YOUR position, then we are the the illegitimate ones. Oh yes,we therefore do not know how to debate. If you are such an upright sort of person, why do you use the same tactics you accuse me and others of using. no, dear person, you are nothing short of a person devoid of critical thinking.Until one can present arguments devoid of such emotional disdain the world of upset will remain. This is a pity.Thank you for reading my blog-your interest and willingness to take time in preparing a response is appreciated. doc; 6:53 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk