Doc's Talk: Iran's Lobby Drooling in Washington Bazaar

Monday, November 17, 2008

Iran's Lobby Drooling in Washington Bazaar

Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/17/2008

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian human rights activist and political scholar. Daioleslam was born in Tehran in 1957. After finishing his primary and high school in Tehran, he entered the Polytechnic University of Tehran in 1974. In the years after the 1979 Iranian Islamist Revolution in Iran, he became a student movement leader standing up against Khomeini's repression and mass executions. He eventually left the country and settled in France. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Daioleslam was active with Iranian secular movements, human rights activities and the defense of Iranian political prisoners. In 2001, Daioleslam moved to the United States and concentrated on political research. Since 2005, he has been collaborating with two independent Iranian journalists inside Iran focusing on the Iranian Regime's lobby in the U.S. His reports have been largely published by major Farsi websites and several US journals. Daioleslam has frequently appeared as an expert guest on the Voice of America-TV as well as on other outlets of Persian media.

FP: Hassan Daioleslam, welcome back to FrontPage Interview.

Daioleslam: My pleasure to be back.

FP: The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is hosting an event in the Senate tomorrow (tuesday). They are going to talk about the new president's policy toward Iran and Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) and Representative John Tierney (D-MA) are among the speakers. Trita Parsi, the president of NIAC, will moderate the conference.1 What do you think about it?

Daioleslam: There are 2 elements; first is the timing of the event and the rush of holding such conference only a few weeks after Obama's election. Second is the message they want to send.

FP: Let's start with the timing. Why so quickly?

Daioleslam: The timing of these meetings could have the impact of influencing the new administration's Iran policy from the beginning. It could create an environment in which Obama's presumed pressure on Iran would become more costly. Timing is very important. Let's look at an interesting interview given by Trita Parsi's former employer, Hooshang Amirahmadi2 who was in Tehran a few days ago and talked about this subject. He told the "Etemad" newspaper in Tehean that the "Iranian lobby" should act quickly to influence the next administration:3 He talked about the Washington bazaar:

"There is clash between various regional [Middle East] lobbies. Israelites will fast gather around Obama . Arabs will also spend their money to get close to Obama. Unfortunately, Iran is very lonely in Washington, and those few, like us, who defend the Iranian rights, are subject of unkind hostility in Tehran. These gentlemen [in Iran] do not truly understand what they do, and how they weaken our position. As a result the field is left wide open for Israelis and Arabs and enemies of Iran. Firstly, Iran should realize that, and empower its friends in Washington, especially in the next one to two months, which is the time [to do it].

Iranian leaders should pay attention to what is going on, and strengthen their friends. They [Iranian leaders] should have confidence in, energize, and trust their friends [in Washington] so they enter the arena. This is very important. Therefore the next two or three months are the time to conquer Obama's heart and mind and that of his teams. Anyone who acts faster will rest trouble free for the next 8 years. Anyone who does not go to that bazaar [marketplace] now, will have a tough time entering that bazaar in future."

FP: Who is Amirahmadi?

Daioleslam: He is the president of the American Iranian Council (AIC) founded in 1997 and funded by US business interests especially the oil industry.4 They were very active until 2001 and pushed for a rapprochement with the Iranian regime. They held exactly the kind of events that Parsi is going to hold next week in the Senate.

FP: Is there a relation between Amirahmadi's declaration and the NIAC's event?

Daioleslam: The answer is probably in another Iranian newspaper, Aftab. Recently, they published an interview with Trita Parsi and in the introduction, the editor wrote that NIAC is doing exactly the same activity as Amirahmadi, the only difference is that NIAC is more influential.5

"Houshang Amirahmadi founded his council, The American Iranian Council (AIC) in 1997. In 2001, Trita Parsi, as a young Iranian Swedish came to the U.S. and joined AIC as the managing director. In 2002, he [Parsi] with the support of the Congressman Bob Nay started a new organization called NIAC (National Iranian American Council). Since then Parsi has been able to achieve a superior status than Amirahmadi."

FP: Are they saying that NIAC or similar groups lobby in favor of the Iranian regime?

Daioleslam: When in April 2007, FrontPage magazine published my first article about NIAC's activities and its relation to the clerical regime, a coordinated campaign by governmental press was launched in Tehran to defend NIAC. Some Iranian newspapers called NIAC the "Iranian lobby." This is the exact term they used.6

FP: Let's go to the second point, what is the message they want to send by these kinds of events?

Daioleslam: If we refer to their past declarations, their message is clear and simple: the Iranian regime is not a threat to either the West or the US. The reason for its nuclear program or regional expansion is because Iran is under threat. They feel lonely and vulnerable. Therefore, remove the threat from Iran and it will act reasonably. The same goes for human rights violations. Iran is under US threat and fears the policy of regime change, therefore, to improve the human rights situation, they are asking for the ceasing of pressure on this regime. Finally, if you listen to these "Iran experts," you should do exactly what Trita Parsi has been trying to say for so long, that the US should accept Iran's power in the Middle East. In an article in the Huffington Post of April 22, 2008 he asked: "Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?" Parsi emphasized that: "Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region."7

FP: If Iran is not a threat, and it is feasible to settle the differences between the US and Iran, why hasn't it been done yet?

Daioleslam: Here comes a central tenant of the pro-Iran campaign. It is very important to understand how they present their campaign. In a long article titled "Iranian lobby and Israeli decoy", I talked about this issue last year.8 The pivotal element in their campaign is Israel.

Similar to the Iranian regime's goal of putting Israel at the center of its foreign policy, its advocacy organizations have also concentrated their efforts on Israel. It is not accidental that Parsi's doctoral thesis and his only book are focused on the "Israeli problem."9

The Iranian lobby's campaign line is simple and efficient; Iran has always been ready to reach an agreement with the US, and the reason behind US hostilities and refusal to engage Iran, they say, is Israel. He wrote in 2006: 10

"For more than 14 years, Israel has been the primary force countering Iran's nuclear advances. Though Israel presents the prospect of a nuclear Iran as a global rather than an Israeli problem, it has compelled Washington to adopt its own red lines and not those of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT)...Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival....Israel is playing hardball to prevent Washington from cutting a deal with Tehran that could benefit America, but deprive Israel of its military and strategic supremacy."

For Parsi, it was not only the US attitude towards the Iranian nuclear issue that had been dictated by Israel, but also the international community's decision to refer the Iranian file to the UN: 11

"With the issue of Iran's nuclear program being taken up by the U.N. Security Council, Israel's hawkish policy and AIPAC's support for Bush administration hard-liners would appear to be paying dividends."

FP: What is the purpose of this campaign? What do they expect from US?

Daioleslam: Interesting question. Only they can say, but it is interesting to see the result of the policies from the Clinton and Bush administrations. The best example is the experience during the past 2 years after the Baker-Hamilton report was released and the US intensified its efforts to accommodate Tehran. Robert Gates took the command as the Defense Secretary and together with Secretary Rice, they tried to approach Tehran. It is difficult to find a politician in the US more favorable to negotiating with Iran than Robert Gates. What has been the result of 2 years of rewarding Iran under Gates and Rice? He brought a clear and unequivocal response during his speech at National Defense University on September 29th. He said:12

"I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. (Laughter.) I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979.

Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed. Some have gotten into deep trouble associated with their failures, but the reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship.

I just think this is a case where we have to look at the history of outreach that was very real, under successive presidents, and did not yield any results. I think until the Iranians decide they want to take a different approach, to the rest of the world, that where we are is probably not a bad place."

FP: Do you think they could paralyze Obama's policy toward Iran?

Daioleslam: I think that US policy will finally be shaped in response to the Iranian regime's behavior. Very soon, the new administration will confront the reality and will adopt a more robust policy than what President Bush has been pursuing. Shortly after, those who favor Iran will portray the Obama administration as being under Israeli's orders and infiltrated by Neocons.

FP: Thank you Mr. Daioleslam.

Daioleslam: Thank you Jamie for inviting me.

Notes:

1-http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1270&Itemid=59

2- See Parsi's resume posted on Web. Advisor to Bob Ney and director of AIC. Mr. Amirahmadi is president of AIC. See http://web.archive.org/web/20011120204601/www.geocities.com/tritaparsi/resume.html; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooshang_Amirahmadi.

3- Etemad newspaper, taken by Emrooz, Nov. 12, 2008, http://emruz.net/ShowItem.aspx?ID=18725&p=1

4- Look at this AIC document which talks about its creation and funding. http://www.american-iranian.org/aboutus/growthplan.pdf at 13 (listing several members of the board who are also executives at various oil companies).

For a complete documentation on AIC, go to my website and see this file: http://www.iranianlobby.com/pfiles/majmoe-asnad2_hoshang_amir_ahmadi.pdf

5- Aftab Newspaper August 5, 2008, http://www.aftabnews.ir/vdcc10q2b0q4m.html

6- Among them, see the 6 following government controlled newspapers: Ghods:http://www.qudsdaily.com/archive/1386/html/2/1386-02-01/page61.html

Alef:http://www.alef.ir/content/view/7756/

Fars News:http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8601280492

EmamMehdi:http://www.emammahdi.com/news/watr.asp?sys=110&subof=1&bakhsh=8&NewsID=857

Tebyan:http://old.tebyan.net/teb.aspx?nId=28205

Javan:http://www.javannewspaper.com/1386/860130/world.htm

7- Trita Parsi: Can the US and Iran share the Middle East: Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/can-the-us-and-iran share_b_97670.html?show_comment_id=12663467

8- Hassan Daioleslam, The Iranian lobby and the Israeli decoy, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_iranian_lobby_and_the_isra.html

9- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trita_Parsi

10- Parsi: "A challenge to Israel's strategic primacy" at: http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/inside.php?id=468

11- Parsi: A modus vivendi between Jerusalem and Tehran" at: http://www.forward.com/articles/a-modus-vivendi-between-jerusalem-and-tehran/

12- http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4295
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

No comments:

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