Since Eli Lake’s blockbuster story and the follow-up by Ben Smith – which revealed, among other things, that the NIAC has been seeking to dislodge Dennis Ross, working to defund Iranian democratic activists, misrepresenting itself as the broad-based representative of the American Iranian community, and actively lobbying the U.S. government without registering as a foreign agent — a curious phenomenon has occurred. The Left and those self-proclaimed non-Leftists who nevertheless uphold each and every one of the Left’s positions have come rushing to the defense of the NIAC and of the now embattled Trita Parsi (who turns out not to be an Iranian-American at all, although that’s been part of his spiel).
Weren’t these the folks painting their websites green and crying crocodile tears over the mullahs’ brutality? Why are they now in the business of flaking for the mullahs’ flak? Take one point: the accusation that the man being sued by the NIAC is a terrorist, Hassan Daioleslam. (The litigation has, it seems, provided the documents that now are the source of the NIAC scandal.) Daniel Luban breathlessly asserts: “Daioleslam is an unsavory character, said by multiple sources to be affiliated with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or MKO) — a terrorist group (classified as such by the State Department) with close ties to the Saddam Hussein regime.” Now that’s a serious charge. Where is the proof that this man is a terrorist, and who are these multiple sources? Did Luban check with Daioleslam, as Eli Lake meticulously checked with each source in his account? Or is this another element in the Leftist smear-fest? And the “our critics are MEK terrorists” line is, surprise, surprise, right out of the NIAC playbook.
But because the story involved no gynecological intrigue, Andrew Sullivan — who surely seemed to be on the side of the democracy protesters whom Parsi conspired to defund — decided that there was no story there at all. And he seems to be very, very confused regarding who’s on the side of the Greens here (“Smearing the non-neocon Green opposition as essentially pro-Khamenei solidifies the neoconservative war project.”) Uh, actually it is Parsi and his J Street friends who were in the business of fending off opposition to the Iranian regime and depriving the Greens and democracy organizations of funds and support. He really thinks the Green movement and its American supporters look upon Parsi as their ally? (As Lake details, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the Iranian filmmaker and defender of the Green Movement abroad, explained: “I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic.”) Well, if Sullivan can get to the bottom of Sarah Palin’s faked pregnancy, then anything is possible, I suppose.
This hue and cry, the mimicking of the NIAC line, and the utter absence of facts to rebut Lake’s account suggest that the name of the game here is distraction. For after all, what can they say — that Parsi really represents the American-Iranian community? Well, 2,500-3,000 members isn’t much. That he’s not been pushing the mullahs’ line to further their uranium-enrichment ambitions? But he has, as he assures us:
The current nuclear impasse is partly rooted in the questionable assumption that zero enrichment is the only route to avoid an Iranian bomb. While the optimal situation is one in which Iran does not enrich, this goal is no longer possible. . . But that does not mean that a small-scale Iranian enrichment program is tantamount to a nuclear bomb. According to nuclear experts like Bruno Pellaud, former deputy director general and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Department of Safeguards, intrusive inspections is the best tool to ensure that Iran doesn’t divert its civilian program into a military one. Yet these inspections can only take place as part of a package deal with Iran that includes some level of enrichment. This makes reassessment of the zero-enrichment objective all the more important.
At some point the NIAC, Parsi, and those who consorted with them to influence U.S. policy, to oust Dennis Ross, to cut off funds to the democracy dissidents, and to push the mullahs’ propaganda line will have to face tough questions. And so will those who went out on a limb to defend them with nothing more than smears against those who exposed them.
UPDATE: Beyond whether the NIAC registered as a foreign agent is the more glaring issue as to why the group and its officials were not not registered as lobbyists. As Ben Smith wrote, the documents that have come to light “bolster the notion that the group works to change U.S. policy, part of the definition of lobbying.”
As always, Max, it depends on who becomes the next president. While I won’t say that Rudy, McCain or Romney will likely take military action against Iran, I think it’s clear that they will at least actively consider it. Another NIE can be ordered, with other authors, that can represent the material in a far more honest fashion under a follow-on Republican administration. However, despite the media’s lame attempt (and the dominant left wing of her party) to paint Hillary as either hawkish or a nascent warmonger, the prospect that she’ll take military action against Iran, or even order a new NIE, are much less. The prospect that any other Democrat now running would do so is close to zero under almost any imaginable condition other than a direct attack on the US.
I agree — the NIE is likely to cause much harm. It smells of political opportunism, being written and released by people who are invested in hurting Bush, despite the serious implications for the US as a whole. My question is, did Bush sign off on the release of this information, if so, why? If he was blindsided, I hope the individuals who are responsible are fired, at a minimum.
The very troubling thing about both the report and the media’s breathless reaction to it is how thoroughly the headlines don’t square with the conclusions of the report itself. It is a perfect storm of unaccountable arrogance: an agenda driven segment of the intelligence community that sees its role not as simply making an accurate intelligence assessment but as manipulating the political debate, and a media that sees its function not as reporting the news but as shaping the political debate solely in accordance with its own whims. Both sides are mutually reinforced and empowered by the other. Yet having reviewed the report, I think it is the media that has committed the grossest violation of the public trust. By its own terms the NIE concluded that that Iran stopped its affirmative efforts to build a nuclear weapon at some point in 2003, yet admits that Iran may have changed its mind subsequently, and more importantly, admits that the decision to build a bomb can be revisted instantly even if the supposed stoppage in 2003 was still in effect. More fundamentally, the same report tells us that Iran continues enriching uranium and in effect is doing everything practically involved in the building of a nuclear bomb, along with having the necessary plans and knowhow required to build a bomb once the requisite fissible material is acquired. Had the media, in accordance with its public trust, simply read the report and its findings, even with the one headline grabbing conclusion it contains, and not been driven by a naked agenda, the headlines would not have been so misleading and so inaccurate. The headline the media chose, that Iran allegedly stopped pursuing a nuclear bomb in 2003 is dishonest beyond belief. The headline conveys a clear impression that Iran permenantly stopped all nuclear related activities, something the NIE report does not come close to saying. The point here is that a lot of people are criticizing the authors of the NIE report, and rightly so, but the disconnect between what the report states, the commonsense response it should have generated (that Iran is still in the nuclear game big time) and what was reported is remarkable and impossible to justify with anything resembling a fairminded reading of the report. The NIE authors may have had some degree of political manipulation in mind, but did they truly believe that the media in reporting the story would so completely ignore the report’s findings in fixating on the single agreeable point? Further, could they have anticipated that the adminstration would be so cowed by the screaming headlines that the simple counterpoint, “read the report”, would become so evasive? Maybe. But in all the speculation about the NIE author’s motives and tactics, why does the absurd response of the mainstream media get such a pass on such an important issue? Have we come to the point where we just accept criminally bad journalism as par for the course? Even if we have, it still merits condemnation.
Meanwhile, Huckabee doesn’t even know what NIE is and he is the Republican front runner. Scary, ha?
This is what Fred had to say about this:
“Not only is Iran the major long-term threat to our country, the nuclear program is the most important part of the Iran consideration. For a presidential candidate not to know that and not to keep up with that is very surprising,” said Thompson.
“These are the kinds of things I’ve been talking about all of my life. Now, if the American people have other priorities, if they want someone who smiles a lot more than I do, or someone who is a better quipster than I am, who has no experience in these areas, that’s for the American people to decide.”