The schedule for the American Jewish Committee conference in Washington coming up in May highlights that Sohrab Ahmari, an Iranian-American, will be addressing the question: "Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped?" Ahmari has been popping up more and more these days, especially at neoconservative organizations like the AJC.
The AJC, established in 1906 to combat anti-Semitism and advance human rights both at home and abroad, is now obsessed with Iran. (Check out its website). In recent years, AJC has dumped much of its domestic agenda in favor of supporting right-wing policies on Israel and especially to war monger on the issue of Iran.
Ahmari, the neocons' favorite Iranian, is very much in the mold of the neocons' favorite Iraqi. During the run-up to the 2003 invasion Ahmed Chalabi was their darling because, as an Iraqi émigré, he was thought to have unique credibility. Neocons loved hearing an Iraqi say that invading Iraq would not only prove successful but would be welcomed by his fellow Iraqis. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a fake, whose agenda was almost entirely personal. The war he and his friends promoted was an infamous catastrophe. And, to put it mildly, the invasion he told us that Iraqis would welcome was not welcomed.
One difference between Chalabi and Ahmari is that Ahmari is a prominent neoconservative, rather than someone who merely courts them. He is, in fact, a fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a neocon think tank in London.
Henry Jackson was a United States Senator from Washington and a proud champion of the original neoconservatives. Known as the "Senator from Boeing," he was a consistent supporter of increased weapons spending, the Vietnam War and anything and everything Israel wanted. He died in 1983 and left as his legacy a group of former staff members who still vociferously agitate for war. Among them are Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith. (Feith became infamous for creating and running the war's disinformation shop at the Pentagon.)
The Henry Jackson Society closely reflects the world view of the former Jackson aides. And so does Ahmari who is now traveling the country speaking as, and for, Iranian-Americans. His sidekick is Peter Kohanloo, a law student in Boston and self-described organizer within the Iranian-American community.
However, like Chalabi, neither of these spokesmen have a following, either among Iranian-Americans or Iranians, a fact that probably makes them deeply resentful of the Iranian-American organization that does, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
NIAC opposes the Iranian regime and supported the 2009 protests against it. But it believes that the most effective, and probably only, way to successfully change Iranian behavior is through diplomacy, not sanctions and war threats.
This drives the Iranian neocons nuts. In a February piece on NIAC in Foreign Policy called "The Diaspora's Conscience," Ahmari and Kohanloo try to make the case that NIAC misrepresents the Iranian diaspora's position; instead, inadvertently, they prove the opposite.
The heart of the two neocons' argument is that NIAC distorts the Iranian-American community's view by arguing (using NIAC's own words) that, although they "deeply resent the Iranian regime, [Iranian-Americans] prefer U.S. policies that emphasize engagement and de-escalation."
They continue:
Widely available survey data belie these anecdotal findings. A 2011 Zogby poll commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), a nonpartisan organization that refrains from taking positions on foreign-policy issues, asked Iranian-Americans to identify their two top priorities for U.S. policy toward Iran. An overwhelming majority (63 percent) chose "promotion of human rights and democracy," while 30 percent chose "promoting regime change." In contrast, only 14 percent identified "preventing an American military strike against Iran" as one of their top two priorities.
But exactly how do those poll findings contradict NIAC's position? NIAC favors "promotion of human rights and democracy" as a U.S. priority and, like all but the 30 percent cited in the poll, do not favor "promoting regime change."
Here are some of the other poll findings confirming that NIAC does indeed represent Iran-American views:
- Only 3% favor military action against Iran.
- 44% consider U.S. sanctions to be "burdensome" to their families in Iran.
Most significant of all is this:
A majority (56%) of Iranian Americans now disapprove of President Obama's handling of relations with Iran, while thirty-two percent (32%) approve of how the President addresses this issue. These numbers have flipped since 2009 when a majority of Iranian Americans viewed President Obama's handling of relations with Iran favorably.
Of course, the difference between 2009 and today is that in 2009 President Obama was pursuing a diplomatic approach toward Iran, while today he relies almost exclusively on sanctions and threats of war. Iranians clearly prefer Obama's original approach — not the one subsequently pushed on him by Prime Minister Netanyahu and the neocons (like Ahmari and Kohanloo).
Ahmari and Kohanloo have every right not to share the views of most Iranian-Americans and they clearly don't. Earlier this month in Commentary, Ahmari made clear that his personal preference, like Commentary's, is for regime change precipitated by a U.S. bombing campaign:
The likelihood of an all-out Western land invasion aimed at toppling the mullahs is low. But a limited military intervention aimed at destroying their nuclear facilities may nevertheless precipitate regime collapse. Iran's nuclear sites are spread out over a wide geographic area; an intervention aimed at disabling them must be wider in scope than the Israeli strikes that destroyed Iraq's facilities in 1981 and Syria's in 2007. A successful strike will require destroying much of the country's national defense and security architecture. Having invested so much prestige, moreover, in one signature national project — the nuclear program — the regime stands to lose what little legitimacy it has left should a weeklong airstrike rubble its nuclear sites.
Later he proposes "completely dismantling major state apparatuses," promising that the the Iranian version of de-Ba'athification would not backfire as it did in Iraq. Of course, "dismantling" such state institutions as the Revolutionary Guard and the Basji (Mobilization) forces would require occupying the country — a contingency Ahmari passes over — but which the U.S. military, Iranians, Iranian-Americans and everyone else who knows anything about Iran dismisses as either impossible or insane.
But that is how neocons think. Force works every time. It is, however, definitely not how Iranian-Americans think.
And the two neocons know it too. Asked on a recent podcast how he, as an Iranian-American, can support a war that would hurt Iranians, Kohanloo responded: "I would say the Iranian-American community is not in any position to initiate or prevent a war, that is up to the president and the U.S. government."
In other words, don't pay too much attention to Iranian-Americans who, as they well know, oppose war. If they thought their pro-war views were representative, they would not dismiss the importance of Iranian-American views.
Representative or not, if the Chalabi precedent holds, we are going to see lots more of these two in the coming days. That is why it is of critical importance that these Iranian Chalabis be exposed for what they are before establishing themselves as representing anything larger than themselves and their fellow neocons.
That won't matter to the American Jewish Committee and others who have already enlisted in the anti-Iran crusade. It should — it better, matter to policymakers who might be inclined to believe that Ahmari and Kohanloo actually represent an Iranian-American constituency. They do not.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
However, I do know a few other Iranian-Americans. I know no Iranian-Americans (other than those who support the Mullahcrosy) who wish a war against Iran which will only preserve the regime of the Mullahs and destroy our economy.
Iran has lasted as a nation for more than 2500 years in spite of invasions by Mongol and Arab hordes. All empires die of Imperial over-reach. Our economy has already suffered a huge amount thanks to two wars of choice.
Now I speak only as a selfish American who cares about my job, my house, my net worth, the price of gas at my local station: "War against Iran would be disastrous for us.'
And coincidentally would lead to Iran with nuclear bombs and the Mullahs remaining in power for at least twenty years longer than they would.
I'm not even bringing up the fact the "preemptive" wars are war crimes and the number of innocent civilians who would be killed (murdered in my opinion) in such a grave misadventure.
I agree that an attack on Iran is not a wise move. Do you have any ideas on what should be done to get rid of the current regime? Why don't you belong to any Iranian American groups or organizations? Your brothers in Iran could use the support and so can many thousands of Iranian refugees that are not doing very well right now.
Ba Mehr,
Walt
Ba mehr
Iranian-Americans are among the most educated and wealthiest ethnic groups in the United States. If you truly want to avoid a war with Iran now's the time to speak up.
http://pdmi.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/2012-NIAC-Opinion-Survey-Report-.pdf
which clearly shows that a great majority of Iranian Americans do not have a high opinion of NIAC despite Mr. Rosenberg's assertion. The Survey's general findings include;
95% of respondents expressed NIAC did not represent their interests
95% of respondents believed NIAC was a lobbyist for the Islamic Republic
95% of respondents believed that NIAC had defrauded the federal government
95% of respondents believed that NIAC had lied to members of Congress about its membership numbers
87% of respondents were familiar with Bob Ney and his conviction
83% of respondents said that they were never asked for their opinion by NIAC
You might as well look at online surveys by FOX news or MSNBC. These are all self selected and have no statistical significance, I have never heard of PDMI which does not represent my desire for democracy in my native country. I have seen Mr. Parisi on TV and he appears reasonable.
When you have a real poll tell us about it:
A 2011 Zogby poll commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), a nonpartisan organization that refrains from taking positions on foreign-policy issues, asked Iranian-Americans to identify their two top priorities for U.S. policy toward Iran. An overwhelming majority (63 percent) chose "promotion of human rights and democracy," while 30 percent chose "promoting regime change." In contrast, only 14 percent identified "preventing an American military strike against Iran" as one of their top two priorities.
I personally would belong to the latter 14%. Even though I hate the current regime I love America and another war would be disastrous for our economy.
Anyone who opposes poverty, human rights abuses, war, bloodshed etc. no matter where in the world has my full backing. Moreover, whether someone left Iran at the age of 4 or 40 makes no difference to the validity or veracity of their argument. what I know of Trita Parsi is that he is working very hard to prevent another bloody and costly war in the middle east. That fact alone wins mine and the support of anyone, Iranian or not, who subscribes to the basic principles of universal humanism.
Secondly, Parsi stated under oath that he had a hard drive failure and that is why he can not produce some requested files. Well, the file on the computers in Iran is still on Parsi's harddrive and was modified quite some time before his supposed harddrive failure. So, Parsi did not lose his harddrive as he claims.
http://www.divestfromwar.org/
Here are the results of a recent open poll regarding NIAC and Parsi which was posted on line and not propagated in the backroom of the IRI headquarters. It would appear, NIAC and Parsi are not well thought of by the Iranian American community and 95 percent believe that niether Parsi or NIAC represent Iranian American interests and again 95 percent believe that Parsi and NIAC are lobbyists for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Keep in mind over 2000 people responded to this survey while other surveys routinely poll 200 to 400 people and in some cases a pre-written phone or contact list was provided to the agency by the persons requesting the poll. Doesn't that make you wonder where the phone numbers or the contact names on the list came from? The rest of the poll results for NIAC and Parsi can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE1uIsEzn7U
This information was provided to @ Mr. Rosenberg via twitter today and he has not responded, although he is on line and tweeting away. As far as Parsi or NIAC being human rights advocates, please see Parsi in person at a conference denying any such agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ouJtFCFUc&feature=player_embedded
Try doing some homework on the next story you attach your name to Mr. Rosenberg.
Anyone surprised.
so this means what.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
And before you say that polls of Iranians can't be trusted since people are scared to speak their mind, note that the people were perfectly willing to criticize the regime on many points in these polls. The fact is that Iranians have a long history of being threatened and sanctioned and embargoed by foreign powers -- Russia, Britain -- over 200 years. They have a history of resenting this sort of thing regardless of their views on their own government because they're nationalists who love their country too.
And yes, polls taken place in totalitarian and authoritative countries do not pass the muster of scientific validity and reliability.
200 years didn't do anything to help us and if they were a few like mosadegh we never backed them up and let it go and lived our life the way we did so far. I think you are thinking too highly of us Iranians in regard of Nationalists they are that good or do not have a good record.