As we expected, the whipped-up controversy over the activities of the National Iranian American Committee — fuelled by the attack journalism in The Washington Times — has descended into further invective and allegations.
The Lake piece gave cover to the earlier exaggerations and distortions not only of The Weekly Standard, which is trying to blow apart any engagement with Iran, but also Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic:
A couple of weeks ago I retracted my assertion that Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, did “leg-work” for the Iranian regime. I was trying to suggest, in a not-so artful way, that Parsi is trying to build his organization into an Iranian version of AIPAC, but “leg-work” seemed, in retrospect, like too harsh a description for his activities.
But now I may have to retract my retraction….
Meanwhile, the counter-allegation is spreading that Hassan Daioleslam, who is the source of the allegations and who is being sued by Parsi for defamation, is a long-term member of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO). The group has sought the overthrow of the Iranian regime since 1979, often through violence, bombings, and assassinations.
Josh Rogin of the Cable blog of Foreign Policy is writing that Daioleslam is well-connected with Washington neoconservatives who are challenging NIAC to undercut the Obama administration’s engagement strategy.
Rogin is posting emails between Daioleslam and Kenneth Timmerman, in which the two plot strategy and discuss the plans to leak documents to Eli Lake, who wrote the Washington Times story. Timmerman is a longtime advocate of regime change in Tehran, through platforms such as the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which he co-founded in 1995 with Joshua Muravchik and the late Peter Rodman. He has accused Iran of a role both in the September 11 attacks and the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard — why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an “Iran” label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.
On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Timesparaded an alleged exposé, “Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules”, of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing “questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law” and its warning to “prominent Washington figures” that they “could come to regret their ties to the group”.
Neither length nor the article’s placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack. Read the rest of this entry »
1925 GMT: Now Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi has reacted to yesterday’s Guardian Council verdict: “This government is not legitimate.I’ll continue fighting in any condition and with any means.”
So, of the leading opposition challengers, only Mir Hossein Mousavi has been silent today. We think we know the reason but will wait until the morning to see if our analysis is right.
1900 GMT: In the category of “Well, He Would Say That, Wouldn’t He?”, President Ahmadinejad is quoted by the Islamic Republic News Agency: “This election was actually a referendum. The Iranian nation were the victors and the enemies, despite their … plots of a soft toppling of the system, failed and couldn’t reach their aims.”
The significance is not in Ahmadinejad’s words, but in their low-key presentation. Both in a national broadcast the night after the election and in a press conference the day after that, the President was loudly celebrating his win, even taunting the opposition as “dust”. Now, the day after the Guardian Council has re-affirmed his victory, his public appearance is limited to a brief statement repeating the “foreign threat” theme.
Interpretation? After his over-enthusiasm in the first 48 hours beyond the vote, Ahmadinejad has been reined in by other leaders. The President’s “victory” is looking decidedly Pyrrhic in the wider context of the Iranian system.
As we expected, the whipped-up controversy over the activities of the National Iranian American Committee — fuelled by the attack journalism in The Washington Times — has descended into further invective and allegations.
Entries (RSS)