Wednesday
Mar102010
"Iran at a Crossroads": Scott Lucas Speaks in Washington
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 23:10 
UPDATE 9 MARCH: I'm setting off in a few hours. Iran updates will be lighter than usual until Saturday, but we will keep our eyes on events and try and keep you posted. And, of course, our readers --- thanks to all of you for advice for this trip --- can be relied upon to provide information and comment.have been invited to speak next Wednesday at "Iran at a Crossroads", a hearing organised by the National Iranian American Council at the US Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The event, sponsored by US Senators and including statements from US Congressman, is expected to draw an audience of legislators, government officials, and journalists, as well as the general public.
The event will be live-streamed from 9 a.m. local time(1400 GMT) at NIACInsight.
9:30 AM-9:45 AM
WELCOMING REMARKS
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
9:45 AM-10:15 AM
SPECIAL ADDRESS
Congressman Keith Ellison (MN-5)
10:15 AM-11:30 AM
PANEL I: A CENTURY OLD STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY
Prof. Shireen Hunter
Visiting Fellow, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Prof. Scott Lucas
Professor, University of Birmingham, UK, Editor, Enduring America Blog
Prof. Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak
Director, Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute Center for Persian Studies, University of Maryland
Moderator
Neil MacFarquhar
New York Times
12:00 PM-12:15 PM
SPECIAL ADDRESS
Congressman Mike Honda (CA-15)
12:15 PM-1:30 PM
PANEL II: THE US AND IRAN: BACK TO CONFRONTATION?
Prof. Juan Cole
Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan
Amb. Robert Hunter
Senior Advisor, RAND Corporation
Prof. Muhammad Sahimi
Professor, University of Southern California
Moderator
Dr. Trita Parsi
President, National Iranian American Council
1:30pm – 1:45 pm
CLOSING REMARKS
Dr. Trita Parsi
President, National Iranian American Council
Reader Comments (83)
NIAC and Sahimi utilize the 90/10 rule. 90% of the time they say things that are rational and common sense and otherwise well known and understood in order to create credibility. The other 10% of the time what they do or say is to preserve the regime and maintain status quo.
Those who overtly go to Iran to teach, by definition, are trusted by the TOTALITARIAN regime. I do not think that adds to their credibility.
For an outsider, especially without any Iranian roots, the discussion about NIAC, Tehranbureau, Sahimi etc. - presumably of great relevance - is difficult to follow, to understand or - more so - to judge.
Simple, plain experience from other walks of life shows [me, at least], however,
that e.g.
plants need the bright light of the sun in the same way as they need - dependent of the respective species - a graded gamut of shades
(from light shades to darker, even darkest shades).
Just and exclusively pure, bright, spotless and shadowless light will not do them any good - exceptions, as usually, prove the rule.
Is it enviable, to have a perfect (!) human being as a friend. Is perfection a human quality? Does life not become worth living because reality and real human beings are not flawless?
The irrelevant views of a dilettante
So Maziar,
let me get this straight... what you are saying is that YOU agree with NIAC 90% of the time. but because of the 10% disagreement YOU have with NIAC - that is evidence to you that NIAC is an agent of the IRI.
wow. such an air-tight case. you have convinced me man. thank you for showing me the light!!
your purity test is even worst than the Tea Baggers... at least they only required 80% compliance with their "list".
and while we are on the subject... what exactly constitutes that 10% of ideas or issues that NIAC advocates which you find SO horrid that you so readily paint them with the IRI brush?
To readers like Publicola who are viewing this Iranian-American food fight from the side-lines - I invite you to read all the anti-NIAC posts so far and find a single ACTUAL disagreement with NIAC's positions or policies. what you will find is that 99% of the attacks are claims pulled out of thin air that NIAC is some sort of 'agent' of the IRI. They never seem to challenge any of NIAC's actual positions. never dispute NIAC's points about why broad-based sanctions (such as gasoline sanctions) not only dont work, but also strengthen the IRGC and AN's 'Thugocracy'.
I actually do wish some, like Megan, that have differing view points would actually discuss the merits of their prescriptions for US policy - that would result in a serious discussion of what the US SHOULD do (or not do) instead of this school yard taunting match.
Prof. Lucas, I look forward to watching you and the other panelists discuss these exact issues tomorrow - I understand it will be streamed live on the NIAC Blog. I'm looking forward to a productive discussion with the other commenters either here or on their blog. Good luck tomorrow!
hi friend,
It sounds a very good meeting, I have two specific questions for US senators,
1. Would it be possible for western countries to mention human rights in the sanction? Would you think that US is considering to sanction Nokia Siemens for providing high technology to the Iranian government?
2. When (which year) US think that would be possible to provide Satellite Internet to the Iranian people in term of bypassing the Iranian regime.
Many thanks for this great seminar :-)
Lurker, if you are planning to engage in discussions, you won't actually be "lurking" anymore ;-)
My understanding is that the issue with Trita Parsi is that he arranged meetings between regime agents and congresspeople, with a view to getting better treatment for Iran from the US Congress. Some people feel, understandably, that this was wrong to do because it gave the US Congress the impression that the regime's "not so bad" and that it's a regime the West could do business with, when all the while brutal fascism was taking place back in Iran. I can totally understand those who say if Mr. Parsi had the ear of any congresspeople, he should have made them understand the depths of depravity this regime had already engaged in even back in the eighties, and he should have pushed Congress to demand the harshest international shunning possible for a regime that did such things.
I can also see the viewpoint of those who say Mr. Parsi was just doing what he thought best to try to spare his people from suffering, which they obviously are under the current sanctions. Political realities may have meant that he had to conduct business the way he did, in order to even get a foot in the door. Washington is not as noble as we would all like it to be. Whatever the case, it's true that it's not right that people should die because planes fall out of the sky due to Western sanctions on repair parts; there definitely needs to be a rethinking of that whole plan.
I mean no disrespect to either view, I honestly cannot tell who has the better argument, but I'm sure Prof. Lucas will get some valuable insight during the conference and may be able to shed some light on it!
RE post 2 "Those who overtly go to Iran to teach, by definition, are trusted by the TOTALITARIAN regime. I do not think that adds to their credibility."
Although I have no doubt that Dr Marandi's invitation to the Leveretts to visit the University of Tehran in the last week of February indicates they are trusted (and for reasons many of us already know, deeply admired) by the regime, what you say about people who have official permission to teach (or study) in Iran being inherently trusted by the regime, and by extension lacking in credibility, is simply not true. I know many professors and graduate students in the Netherlands who have regularly taught in Iran and participated in exchange programmes with Iranian universities, but whose opinions would not exactly make them "trusted by the regime". Sadly, this is probably now in the process of changing (http://www.insideiran.org/media-analysis/irgc-joins-move-towards-cultural-revolution/).
As to how having taught or studied in Iran affects these peoples' credibility, well that depends entirely on what they say, write and the agendas they promote, and how this compares to reality.
Below a hint to an interview published by “rooz – online”. Sara Samavati
is talking about the strategy of the “green movement”. The headline:
„Green movement leaders must stay with people, in Iran“.
http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2010/march/09//green-movement-leaders-must-stay-with-people-in-iran.html
@GreenQuran - those are very good points. the Human Rights "in all diplomatic engagements" issue is on the agenda of not only NIAC, but almost all the serious Iran specialists giving commentary and has been for years, and it is the right approach. The Nokia/Siemens sanctions have been brought up many times since this summer - but have not received traction for some reason - I wonder if Iranian/Norweigians could put pressure from within Norway (though there are more Iranians in Sweden than Norway). on the satellite internet - that is a great idea, and again has been talked about quite a bit - would love to hear a discussion on that.
@ Rev - very true. but I could not sit by and Lurk while ppl bad-mouthed a group that has done SOOOOO much good for our community. As for your specific question, I think they are very valuable and I will attempt to answer them based on my knowledge.
"...he arranged meetings between regime agents and congresspeople."
This conclusion by some is based on Parsi's emails to Javad Zarif. first, it is true that Javad Zarif was the official representative of the IRI in NYC at the UN. that is very true. that is why this accusation has the smell of accuracy. but a few important points:
1- Javad Zarif was appointed by Khatami - he was a reformist who continues to command tremendous respect from even the likes of Nicholas Burns (Bush's Iran point person). Zarif was also the Iranian diplomat who in late 2001, after 9/11, made sure that the Bonn Conference (about Afghanistan) became a success - as related by The main US diplomat at the conference and current RAND Corp. Director Amb. James Dobbins: http://www.twq.com/10january/index.cfm?id=381
2 - Parsi's emails are very clear - he was a conduit for the Members of Congress (both R and D) to reach out to Zarif. at the time, if you all remember, there was a high likelihood that Bush would go to war with Iran - and there were MANY members of Congress, both R+D, who wanted to do an end-run around Bush to stop the US from making such a HUGE mistake - and Zarif was not the only connection - other avenues were also used. THEY asked Parsi to connect them to him. This shows the trust Members of the US Congress had in him to ask him to perform such a delicate and important task.
3 - Parsi has made clear that he knew Zarif because of his book. for "Treacherous Alliance", his amazing and award-winning book, Parsi interviewed over 130 high ranking officials in the US, Israel AND in Iran (this was back in the early 2000s, again - the Khatami era). Just because he talked to the former head of Mossad, does that make Trita an Israeli agent too? no - of course not. this was and is a tremendous work of scholarship.
4 - As an Iran specialist, of course Parsi needs to be able to speak to official Iranian government sources as well as opposition figures and other analysts. That is what makes his writings so powerful - because unlike much of the crap we have heard from "exiled opposition groups" for 30 years, he actually knows what he is talking about.
5 - the emails that Dai used as "evidence" that Parsi was "reporting" to Zarif (and I've read all of Dai's stuff), are all emails that I also received. you know why? because Parsi has an email distro list so he sends out all the articles he writes to his list. Zarif was on that list. I was on that list. I know of several friends in the State Dept and people I worked with in Congress who were also on Parsi's list. YOU could get on his distro list. why? because his articles and commentary are often very insightful, informed, and analytical.
You see Rev. one thing to understand about the attacks on Parsi and NIAC is that in my opinion most of them stem from the fact that he has been so successful. I mean in only 8 years, NIAC is now considered one of the premiere Iran Policy groups in DC. Why do members of Congress, State, the White House, BBC, PBS, CNN, and organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, RAND, even CATO and Brookings etc work hand-in-hand with NIAC and trust NIAC so much? Trita is NOT that charismatic, he's NOT rich, and its not like he started off with a ton of connections... its because his IDEAS and his analysis speak for themselves.
At the end of the day, people who for 30 years have not been able to achieve even a tenth of what NIAC has achieved are quite upset that they cant seem to sell their ideas even to the Iranian-American community never mind the power centers in DC... and here comes a new group that marginalizes them and makes them irrelevant through sheer force of its ideas and actions. That is a very disconcerting and maddening phenomenon for people who monopolized the US-Iran discourse in DC for the preceding 20 years (not to mention that they had established networks, tons of money, organization, and lots of members)
So - Rev - I know this is long - but it was an important question you asked. The point is that of course Parsi had connections with Zarif - but not only is that not evidence of his being an agent for IRI - its evidence of him being a heavy-weight with phenomenal sources that is taken seriously by very serious people.
as for the depths of depravity of this regime - that is a red herring. of course this regime is reprehensible. the real question is - how do you deal with it - how do you alleviate it - how do you respond to it as the United States and through US policy. NIAC's consistent stance (with which I agree fully) is that the way you deal with it is by empowering the Iranian people and the Iranian middle class.
Sanctions does the exact opposite. Sanctions empower the ruling elite, they hurt the anti-regime elements of the society, they harm US national interest and reduce our hard and soft power and our capability to influence Iran, and they also hurt Iranian-Americans as well as American interests. There is almost no redeeming value to sanctions as a policy and experts will tell you that in the history of the world, they have only worked twice (in very specific cases) while failing to work dozens of times.
wow - that was long.
Live Stream:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/niac-conference-2010---iran-at-a-crossroads
Prof Lucas up now...
I think it's very good to speak about HR, putting pressures on iranian regime but it's not enough ! do you remember Tienenmen 's events in China , when regime was criticized from every side, every country ? and what was (and is)the outcome ? " nothing"; it's only to put people to sleep ; melting human rights issues plus sanctions will work better ; I agree with people who say that it's because of the former sanctions that we have seen that uprising in Iran .So :
1-social pressures, criticizing regime's behavor with its own people
2-economic pressures, from outside using sanctions
3-economic pressures from inside,
"Our sugar producers are always loosing money while the market is full of imported sugar. The same is true for farmers that grow apples or oranges. The movement can call on the public not to buy foreign rice and not eat it. Such civil disobedience campaigns can be launched."
I think, economic response to bad behavor of this regime will work better to get rif of this thugocracy and are more efficient .
"sanctions", obviousely targeted on the most important IRGC's cies ! folding seriously their back !
They have to know that in a country people have to obey the law, ordinary people or sepah or thugs in the streets who pull their knife killing innocent people and thugocracy is not admitted by our brave people !
NIAC represents those who have economical interests in the Islamic Republic and would like to see its structure preserved one way or another. Listen to what they say carefully and you will see that they represent an economic Mafia who first emerged during Rafsanjani reign and thrived during Khatami's era of hypocrisy.
They are at odds with the military-industrial fascists who have taken over recently. Neither side has the interests of the Iranian nation at heart. Both would like to make deals with I.R. to enrich themselves. Their supporters in the US include University Professors, Industrialists and even Real Estate speculators.
None represent people of Iran green movement and soon to be uprising to free themselves of Islamic Republic regime of murder and corruption.
NIAC and others changed their tune after they saw green movement has taken root and their opposition to it only discredits them further.
Any action, including sanctions that weaken the regime works for the Iranian people. Regime has to spend much of its resources on feeding its forces of repression. Best sanctions would be on exports, obviously oil. An OIL EMBARGO can bring down the regime in weeks.
Maziar,
I share your views and your sentiments.
Megan, Maziar,
We had extended discussion about Parsi's motives under another posting:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/12/29/latest-iran-video-parsi-sadjadpour-on-the-meaning-of-ashura-protests/
I suggest watching this BBC clip:
“BBC reveals Hassan Dai’s links to neoconservatives seeking to undermine Obama by attacking NIAC and Trita Parsi”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYZc2EZdBic
Lurker, I was following you until you got to the part about the atrocities being a red herring that the Iranian middle class should somehow solve on their own. I think the actions of Khamenei and several of his underlings clearly rise to the level of crimes against humanity, and that is not something anybody should just sweep under the rug and deal with. It's the reason we have a UN in the first place.
I think the proper response is for the UN to file charges against the perpetrators of these atrocities, and for the rest of the world to respect those charges. Refuse to do business with anyone indicted for crimes against humanity or war crimes. Refuse to hold their money in banks. Refuse to let their planes land. If they do manage to arrive in some other country, arrest them on the spot. Treat them as though the crimes they have committed are actually crimes with real law enforcement consequences, just like they would do for a petty criminal not in control of a vast oil field.
Basically I'd like the Western world to stop acting like a bunch of junkies who are scared to anger their dealers, and stand up for what's right. That doesn't mean war, it means making sacrifices, giving up a little bit of profit, and really doing what we know we have to do to make ourselves energy independent again.
Publicola
From what I can see, it's been a while, but has changed with complications from Iraq and Afghanistan interventions. In its black and white extremes :
MEK = us =uk hawks (who support them and other anti shia groups) = war or hard sanctions = regime change + seeing iranian intell agents behind all other positions, people, groups, websites etc.
Reformists = green = no regime change = no sanctions but dialogue = democrats and left + hatred of MEK
The interview that Gunni has put in 8 would be considered as a regime stooge, that is allowing it to bide time for the regime to develop military arsonal, eliminate or recruit more dissidents, through threats, bribes etc.
This would be seen as pragmatic and realist by reformists because no other option is reasonably available.
The reality seems to be both these and others inbetween. And has changed the line since the june protests. But I can see articles written in 2006 (on both sides ) that are the same as today.
I guess this conference is to talk about this line of division.
BTW - the two 'agents'' (#6) website = http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=7815
In fact, they hate the MEK but they hate the greens aswell.
theali,
Thank you for the links. I am a regular reader of EA and read posts and all comments regarding Iran. I also read, watch, and listen to many other news sources as well as callers from Iran. Furthermore I use my brain and common sense to analyze news before I arrive at a position. I weed out words and views of those who boisterously push a view point and relentlessly promote, defend, and justify an individual or themselves.
I find supporters of NIAC and its founder to be too loud and too confrontational and for me that is an immediate disqualifier. I believe those who are right do not need to shout or pound the table. They also do not need to compare their idol to others by discrediting others. If you read my comments you will find I never promote anyone person.
NIAC does not represent my views and thousands of Iranians living in the U.S. and more importantly it does reflect views of Iranians living in Iran. I suggest you read views of Iranians who live in Iran and have commented on this very topic on this blog.
NIAC and Trita Parsi are much too small and much too insignificant in the universe of suffering called Iran. This back and forth is, therefore, silly and petty at best. I believe the focus must be on those Iranians who are in solitary confinement right now, those who are being wasted away in jail or in hiding, and those who live in fear, those who have lost their loved ones, those who have no jobs and no hope, those cannot feed their families, or those university students who have been expelled from school, etc, etc. I follow their queues. I will not fall for any political group, cult, organization or any individual. It is hopeless to indoctrinate me.
*I tried posting this last night, and it did not post. so I'll get to Megan's comment later*
Rev - the 'red herring' is not that the 'depravity of Khamenei' is NOT true... but in that no one disagrees with the 'depravity of Khameni' rising to level of crimes against humanity.
As in - it is obvious that this is the case and that Parsi, NIAC, myself etc see things this way... the red herring is that people like Dai/Maziar talk about the 'badness of the IRI' to distract from the real debate... ie, what is the best US policy? we all agree that the IRI is horrible - that is not in question.
also Rev - note that months ago, Parsi and NIAC called for the UN to appoint a special Human Rights representative to investigate IRI's HR violations.
also - I would ask you to go back and take a look at Maziar's post. the one that Megan so readily agrees with:
"NIAC represents those who have economical interests in the Islamic Republic"
Really Maziar? where is your evidence? do you have proof that big bad businessmen are funding NIAC? do you think Iranian businessmen from Iran are funding NIAC? so you think the IRS and FBI are simply too stupid to realize such a thing is going on under their noses? have you bothered to look at NIAC's federally mandated and publicly available 501c3 tax returns? have you been to their dozens of fundraisers around the country where average Iranians show up in the hundreds to give donations from $100 to a few thousand dollars? did you know the average donation to NIAC was $162 in 2008? a little honest research would alleviate your conspiratorial paranoia... but I suspect you dont care about the REAL truth as much as you care about spreading falsehoods about NIAC.
"...would like to see its structure preserved one way or another."
is that right? please link to the articles where NIAC extols the virtues of Iran's system.
the rest of your diatribe is so divorced from reality that one would assume you live in your own deluded world. but this next part is very interesting...
"Best sanctions would be on exports, obviously oil. An OIL EMBARGO can bring down the regime in weeks."
in only weeks you say? really? wow! someone get this claravoiante man to the CIA, to the White House, to DoD... I cant believe with all the billions we spend on national defense, not a single person in government realized that this was the easy solution to our Iran problem. You are SOOOOO smart Maziar.
oh wait. others did think of this. they also researched it. and they also showed with EVIDENCE why your statement is complete and utter nonsense. Try reading a bit:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_scheme_out_of_gas
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20091027_5502.php
http://www.fpif.org/articles/iran_gas_ban_step_toward_war_with_iran
there are dozens more. do a google search. in fact, an OIL embargo like the one you want is not only not possible (India, China, Brazil, Russia, Venuezvela, and even Japan would not go along) but even if it was:
1) IRI has already increased its gas reserves to cover 3 months at current conumption rates.
2) it would allow AN and the regime to get rid of gas subsidies with minimal political risk
3) it would take months just to set up such an embargo
4) the IRGC has extensive smuggling capabilities and can import whatever it needs
5) Even if Iran was not able to respond by shutting down the straights of Hormuz or otherwise disrupt other oil flow... even if ONLY Iranian oil was taken out of the global pipeline - oil prices would skyrocket and the already teetering world economy would be hit by a huge price shock. another words, in the short term (the weeks you were talking about) the rest of the world would suffer MORE economic damage than Iran would.
but really the key is that people who WANT an oil embargo know one thing... it wont work - and it will cause both the US and Iran to escalate leading directly to the armed conflict they can't WAIT to have with Iran.
But I do want to thank you - because finally - you have made clear what you are FOR. which means we can debate the merits of your idea.
Rev - the 'red herring' is not that the 'depravity of Khamenei' is NOT true... but in that no one disagrees with the 'depravity of Khameni' rising to level of crimes against humanity.
As in - it is obvious that this is the case and that Parsi, NIAC, myself etc see things this way... the red herring is that people like Dai/Maziar talk about the 'badness of the IRI' to distract from the real debate... ie, what is the best US policy? we all agree that the IRI is horrible - that is not in question.
also Rev - note that months ago, Parsi and NIAC called for the UN to appoint a special Human Rights representative to investigate IRI's HR violations.
also - I would ask you to go back and take a look at Maziar's post. the one that Megan so readily agrees with:
"NIAC represents those who have economical interests in the Islamic Republic"
Really Maziar? where is your evidence? do you have proof that big bad businessmen are funding NIAC? do you think Iranian businessmen from Iran are funding NIAC? so you think the IRS and FBI are simply too stupid to realize such a thing is going on under their noses? have you bothered to look at NIAC's federally mandated and publicly available 501c3 tax returns? have you been to their dozens of fundraisers around the country where average Iranians show up in the hundreds to give donations from $100 to a few thousand dollars? did you know the average donation to NIAC was $162 in 2008? a little honest research would alleviate your conspiratorial paranoia... but I suspect you dont care about the REAL truth as much as you care about spreading falsehoods about NIAC.
"...would like to see its structure preserved one way or another."
is that right? please link to the articles where NIAC extols the virtues of Iran's system.
the rest of your diatribe is so divorced from reality that one would assume you live in your own deluded world. but this next part is very interesting...
...
...
"Best sanctions would be on exports, obviously oil. An OIL EMBARGO can bring down the regime in weeks."
in only weeks you say? really? wow! someone get this claravoiante man to the CIA, to the White House, to DoD... I cant believe with all the billions we spend on national defense, not a single person in government realized that this was the easy solution to our Iran problem. You are SOOOOO smart Maziar.
oh wait. others did think of this. they also researched it. and they also showed with EVIDENCE why your statement is complete and utter nonsense. Try reading a bit:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_scheme_out_of_gas
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20091027_5502.php
http://www.fpif.org/articles/iran_gas_ban_step_toward_war_with_iran
there are dozens more. do a google search. in fact, an OIL embargo like the one you want is not only not possible (India, China, Brazil, Russia, Venuezvela, and even Japan would not go along) but even if it was:
1) IRI has already increased its gas reserves to cover 3 months at current conumption rates.
2) it would allow AN and the regime to get rid of gas subsidies with minimal political risk
3) it would take months just to set up such an embargo
4) the IRGC has extensive smuggling capabilities and can import whatever it needs
5) Even if Iran was not able to respond by shutting down the straights of Hormuz or otherwise disrupt other oil flow... even if ONLY Iranian oil was taken out of the global pipeline - oil prices would skyrocket and the already teetering world economy would be hit by a huge price shock. another words, in the short term (the weeks you were talking about) the rest of the world would suffer MORE economic damage than Iran would.
but really the key is that people who WANT an oil embargo know one thing... it wont work - and it will cause both the US and Iran to escalate leading directly to the armed conflict they can't WAIT to have with Iran.
But I do want to thank you - because finally - you have made clear what you are FOR. which means we can debate the merits of your idea.
I think I speak for the majority of Iranians that live diaspora and also in Iran when I say that Trita Parsi and the NIAC holds no significance to us. I think there is no question that Trita Parsi's interest do not correlate with those of the Iranian nation but rather what he or the NIAC can accomplish in Washington DC. How much relevance they can be on the world's stage. Am I not right Green Lurker (Trita). Any man (Trita) that is suing another fellow Iranian for saying that "he doesn't look Iranian" is a man who is insecure with himself and feels his group is so fragile that even the slightest insult would deem him irrelevant in the eyes of those with importance. He has no future in Iran and will never have a future with the Iranian people.
Megan -
The people who have been attacking the "individual" or group are yourself and Maziar. you can dislike the guy or the group all you want. good for you. but to then claim they 'represent' the IRI because YOU dont like them is not only a logical fallacy its also rude and engenders the pointed and passionate responses you've gotten.
I dont think everyone has to agree with NIAC or with Parsi. like I said above in response to Maziar - you can disagree with NIAC's prescriptions, but bring your opinion on the subject and some evidence to the table rather than petulant personal attacks calling the guy an 'agent'.
Lets get to the heart of this question. What should the US Policy vis-a-vis Iran be?
some radical neo-con types believe in war and bombing. I dont think we have many of those here.
some interventionists believe 'crippling sanctions', direct monetary support for the Greens, an oil or gas embargo, or some other form of direct government intervention is the path to a successful policy. (this is where I think you fall correct?)
some believe that 'targeted sanctions' which target IRGC and regime leaders, calls for Human Rights including a UN special rapporteur, lifting of sanctions on communication technologies, and moral support for the Green movement are best (this is where NIAC falls)
and hard-core realists believe that the key is really American interests only, thus dealing with AN and Khamenei is no worst than dealing with Mubarak, the Al Sauds, or any other dictators and that we should ignore the Green movement and make a grand bargain now (the Leveretts)
these are all 'valid' opinions on US policy - what WE should do is debate the merits of each rather than simply bad-mouthing those who dont agree with us. and calling someone or a group a 'regime agent' or 'mozdoor' or any such thing is a disservice to the entire community and simply wrong.
so i'm sorry if I disappoint you by being passionate about something you dont like. but I am passionate about stopping people from lying or bad-mouthing an organization and an individual that I hold in such high regard. deal with it ;)
Green activist
You are so agressif with people when they don't share your views and personal attacks are not good !
I think you don't know the meaning of democracy and how tolerate different views without getting work up; "Democracy" is free speach, free thought, free writing, free debate and with all the diffrences between different groups, the majority win; keep cool !
(correction)
Green activist
You are so agressif with people when they don’t share your views and personal attacks are not good !
I think you don’t know the meaning of democracy and how tolerate different views without getting worked up; “Democracy” is free speach, free thought, free writing, free debate and with all the diffrences between several groups, and eventually the majority win; keep cool !