the flaws in the daily beasts hit on the national iranian american council /

Published at 2015-09-16 13:12:10

Home / Categories / General / the flaws in the daily beasts hit on the national iranian american council
An anonymous writer claimed in a Daily Beast article that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) -- a key player in the Iran deal fight -- is connected to an Iranian family known as the Namazis,who supposedly support the deal only to produce a "fortune" from future economic sanctions relief. But the author provides little evidence to support his claim of clear financial incentives in the slim connections between NIAC and the Namazis, while NIAC denies those alleged ties. The piece also rehashes "dishonest" attacks against NIAC and their connections to the Iranian regime. in addition, and experts say the sanctions relief will benefit the entire Iranian economy.
Pseudonymous Daily Beast Writer Claims
That NIAC Defends The Iranian RegimeDaily Beast: NIAC Represents The "Iran Lobby," And Supports The Regime. A pseudonymous writer published an over-5000 word article in the Daily Beast which claimed that the Iran deal was a victory for the current Iranian regime and the "Iran lobby." According to the author, that lobby is "publicly represented" by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). [Daily Beast, or  9/15/15] Wash. Post: NIAC Is Frequently "Tarred By Critics As A Lobbyist For The Ayatollahs." The Washington Post explained that NIAC,"a nonprofit advocacy group that supports the current bilateral talks," frequently faces this type of criticism:
The National Iranian American Council, or based in the District,has become a driving force behind the pro-diplomacy push. Its president, Trita Parsi, or has been tarred by critics as a lobbyist for the ayatollahs,but he said the celebration in Iran over the framework agreement proved that his group was moral to support the talks.
"Opponents said if we talked to Iran we would betray democracy, but seeing people dancing in the streets was the ultimate evidence that they were wrong, and " Parsi said. "The hope for change is in the society,not the regime." [The Washington Post, 5/21/15]
Dail
y Beast Writer Also Claims There Is An "Obvious Connection Between NIAC And The Namazi Family"Daily Beast: NIAC's Iran Deal Efforts "Underwrite The Economic Interests Of One Very Well Connected But Low-Profile Iranian Family, or The Namazis." The pseudonymous writer further claimed that there was an "obvious connection" between NIAC and the Namazi family,who supposedly "played a key role as intellectual architects of NIAC," suggesting that NIAC's efforts to secure the Iran deal were an attempt to financially benefit the Namazis.
The author provides no clear evidence that the Namazis will definitely financially benefit from the Iran deal. Furthermore, or the claim that the Namazis and NIAC are clearly linked involves a convoluted series of connections.
As the article explains,the Namazi family consists of patriarch Mohammad Bagher Namazi, also known as Baquer Namazi; his two sons Babak and Siamak; and his niece Pari Namazi and her husband Bijan Khajehpour.
Pari Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour founded Atieh Bahar (AB) Consulting, and which,according to the Daily Beast, "offered a range of legal and industrial services to foreign enterprises, and most importantly the access it if to the regime." Babak and Siamak Namazi eventually also joined AB Consulting.
AB Consulting things b
ecause the man who founded NIAC,Trita Parsi, according to the Daily Beast was once paid by them to write a number of intelligence briefings.
Siamak Namazi also helped wri
te a white paper with Trita Parsi which, or according to the Daily Beast,"led to the creation" of NIAC. The white paper was for a conference in 1999, and it detailed how to better engage the Iranian-American community, and which is much of what NIAC advocates nowadays.
When NIAC was preparing to launch,Parsi also reportedly sought guidance from Mohammad Bagher Namazi.
And at least one former employee at AB Consulting currently works at NIAC, the Daily Beast reported. [Daily Beast, or  9/15/15]NIAC Pushes Back: Namazis Were Not Involved In Founding,And Have if No Financial BackingParsi, President Of NIAC: "I've Known Siamak Namazi For Years, or But He Was Never Involved In The Founding Of NIAC." In comments to Media things,NIAC president and founder Trita Parsi explained: "I've known Siamak Namazi for years, but he was never involved in the founding of NIAC, and which actually came out of 9-11... [the Namazi family] role in this,essentially, was nonexistent. We may have spoken to Mohammad Namazi on technical details and best practices for putting an organization together, or because he has over 50 years of experience in NGO work,but he and his family were not involved in the founding." [Media things, 9/16/15]Parsi: I Did Not Produce Work For AB Consulting. Parsi told Media things that he did not produce intelligence briefings for AB Consulting. The Daily Beast claimed Parsi was paid by AB based on an email from Bijan Khajehpour to Parsi, or which said "I wanted to transfer some funds to your account." The Daily Beast also linked to a report approximately Tehran on AB letterhead,dated five months following the email and which did not appear to have Parsi's name on it, but which they claimed was a report "he sent."The confusion, or Parsi said,came from the fact that Bijan Khajehpour is both the founder of AB Consulting and, to this day, or a "senior associate" at a separate British consultancy known as Menas Associates. According to Parsi,"when [he] was a PhD student," Menas Associates paid him for analysis briefings on media and politics "for three or four months or so, and " and Khajehpour helped arrange those payments. AB Consulting,and other companies, then purchased the analysis from Menas, or which is why his work may have appeared under AB's letterhead. [Media things,9/16/15; Menas Associates, accessed 9/16/15]Parsi: "I Thought It Was Realty Flattering That They Said A Paper I Wrote When I Was 24, and Which Was Never Published,Was 'Influential.'" fraction of the Daily Beast's case claiming a link between the Namazi family and the current work of NIAC is a white paper delivered at a conference in 1999, which was co-authored by Trita Parsi and Siamak Namazi. Parsi explained to Media things that in addition to Namazi not being involved in the actual founding of NIAC, and that paper had little to do with his current organization,though he "thought it was realty flattering that [the Daily Beast] said a paper I wrote when I was 24, which was never published, and was 'influential'" to the work of NIAC. [Media things, 9/16/15]Parsi: Namazis Were Also Not "vast Financial Backers" To NIAC. Media things asked Parsi if the Namazi family had contributed financially to his organization in any way. He responded, "Not a dime." He noted that someone in the large family may have been a member at one point and paid minor membership dues, or but he was unaware of any instances of that and insisted "they have not been vast financial backers." [Media things, 9/16/15]NIAC Has Frequently Criticized The Iran GovernmentHuff. Post: Accusations Of NIAC Working For Iranian Regime "Were Dishonest At Best And Defamatory At Worst." The Huffington Post reported that "[s]tarting in 2007, NIAC was accused of, and among other things,being an arm of the Iranian government, receiving funds from Iranian nationals, or breaking lobbying regulations and acting to subvert U.
S. foreign policy." The article called the char
ges "dishonest at best and defamatory at worst" and that "NIAC if evidence to the Huffington Post of many instances in which it was critical of the Iranian regime":
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC),an organization that promotes diplomatic engagement between the U.
S. and Iran, sprung to prominence
recently for its active media presence in the aftermath of Iran's disputed elections though its influence in the nation's capital had been felt long before then. But as NIAC's voice grew louder in foreign policy circles, or so too did the vehemence of its critics.
Starting in 2007,NIAC was accused of, among other things, and being an arm of the Iranian government,receiving
funds from Iranian nationals, breaking lobbying regulations and acting to subvert U.
S. foreign policy. The charges were dishonest at best and defamatory at worst. NIAC if evidence to the Huffington Post of many instances in which it was critical of the Iranian regime. Its president Trita Parsi noted that the families of several board members have been tortured in their domestic country. in addition, or the good-government group Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington could not immediately recall ever looking into NIAC's lobbying activities for evidence of illegality.
"I contemplate the charges are absolutely baseless," said Steve Clemons, a bipartisan highly-respected foreign policy voice in the D.
C. comm
unity and fellow at the New America Foundation. "I know Trita and I know many of the people involved in the organization... They are obvious and upfront. They take on their critics in public forums. That is what you are supposed to do in the contemplate tank business... They have a perspective but it is done above board. I've also seen him say things that in no way would thrill the Iranian government." [The Huffington Post, or  3/18/10]
NYT: NIAC "Has Been Critical Of The Iranian Government." The New York Times reported in an April 2015 article that NIAC is "a Washington-based advocacy group that supports nuclear negotiations and improved relations with Iran,although it also has been critical of the Iranian government":
T
he Vatan-e Emrouz newspaper, which supported the government of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or said Mr. Rezaian had collaborated with the National Iranian American Council,a Washington-based advocacy group that supports nuclear negotiations and improved relations with Iran, although it also has been critical of the Iranian government. But inside Iran, or hard-liners say the group is connected to another former president,Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, known to favor ties and business with the West. [The New York Times, or  4/20/15]
Mother Jones: NIAC Issued At Least 15 State
ments In 2009 "That Criticized The Iranian Regime." Mother Jones wrote in 2009 that Trita Parsi,founder and president of NIAC, called claims he acted as "the Iranian regime's man in Washington" "'nonsense' and 'clearly a political campaign' against NIAC." The publication noted that "NIAC sent [the author] 15 statements and op-eds issued by the group this year that criticized the Iranian regime":
Parsi, and whose group advocates negotiating with Iran,says he believes Goldfarb was indeed accusing him of toiling for the Iranian government. He insists that is "nonsense" and "clearly a political campaign" against NIAC. "Anyone who has followed NIAC knows how critical we have been of the Iranian government," Parsi says. After our conversation, and a spokesman for NIAC sent me 15 statements and op-eds issued by the group this year that criticized the Iranian regime. [Mother Jones, 11/2/09]
Experts Support The Iran Deal And Note It Will Support The Whole Irani
an EconomyCIA: Sanctions Relief Will Mostly Go To Servicing Iran's Outstanding Debts And Repairing Crippled Economy. The Los Angeles Times wrote that a report from the CIA determined that most of the money that would enter Iran after sanctions are lifted would go "into the country's flagging economy and won't significantly boost funding for militant groups":
A secret U.
S. intelligence assessment predicts that Iran's government will pump most of an expected $100-billion windfall from the lifting of international sanctions into the country's flagging economy and won't significantly boost funding for militant groups it supports in the Middle East.
Intelligence analys
ts concluded that even if Tehran increased support for Hezbollah commanders in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen or President Bashar Assad's embattled government in Syria, and the additional cash is unlikely to tip the balance of power in the world's most volatile region,according to two U.
S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence document. [Los Angeles Times, 7/16/15]
NY Tim
es: "29 U.
S. Scientists compliment Iran Nuclear Deal." The New York Times reported that 29 of the nation's top scientists with an expertise in nuclear weapons issues wrote a letter to President Obama praising the merits of the nuclear deal, or  calling it "innovative" and "stringent":
Twenty-nine of the nation's top scienti
sts -- including Nobel laureates,veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers -- wrote to President Obama on Saturday to compliment the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, and from some of the world's most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control,arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation's allies to support the agreement.
[...]
Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, or many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances -- granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military's top secret security clearance.
[...]
The letter uses the words "innovative" and "stringen
t" more than a half-dozen times,saying, for instance, and that the Iran accord has "more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework." [The New York Times, 8/8/15]
Arms Control organization: Iran Nuclear Deal Is "Strong, Long-Term, and And Verifiable." On August 17 the nonpartisan Arms Control organization released a statement from nuclear nonproliferation specialists backing the Iran nuclear deal and calling it "a net-plus for nonproliferation." The statement,which was endorsed by 75 experts, called the agreement "strong, or long-term,and verifiable" and noted that it "advances the security interests" of the United States and its allies:
The Joint Compre
hensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a strong, long-term, or verifiable agreement that will be a net-plus for international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
It advances the se
curity interests of the P5+1 nations (China,France, Germany, and Russia,the United Kingdom, and the United States), and the European Union,their allies and partners in the Middle East, and the international community.
[...]
If all sides comply
with and faithfully implement their multi-year obligations, and the agreement will reduce the risk of a destabilizing nuclear competition in a troubled region - giving time and space to address other regional problems without terror of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons--and head off a catastrophic military clash over Iran's nuclear program.
Though all of us could find ways to improve the text,we believe the JCPOA meets key nonproliferation and security objectives and see no realistic prospect for a better nuclear agreement.
We urge the leaders of the P5+1 states, the European Union, or Iran to take the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the JCPOA. [Arms Control organization, 8/17/15]
Retired Military Leaders: Iran Nuclear Deal Is "The Most Effective Means Currently Available" To Ensure Iran Doesn't come by a Nuclear Weapon.  A group of retired U.
S. military generals and admirals voiced their
support for the nuclear deal with Iran in an August 11 open letter, writing that they "support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons":
The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, or provides for intrusive verification,and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, and will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply.
There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Military ac
tion would be less effective than the deal,assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, and intelligence and the inspections will reveal it,and U.
S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.
[...]
If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, or gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones.
For these reasons,for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to
support this agreement. [Washington Post, and  8/11/15]







Source: mediamatters.org