The Washington Post, "As an Iran deal nears, the lobbying, pro and con, intensifies": A Glaring Omission

In a lead Washington Post article entitled "As an Iran deal nears, the lobbying, pro and con, intensifies," Karen DeYoung writes:

"Many believe the deadline will not be met. 'My own view is that it’s highly unlikely,' said Thomas R. Pickering, a former top U.S. diplomat who has met with numerous members of Congress to build support for the agreement."

Regrettably, Ms. DeYoung does not mention that Pickering is listed as a member of the Advisory Board of the National Iranian American Council.

This information should have been included in DeYoung's article. Pickering is anything but a disinterested party.

I have written to Martin Baron, WaPo's editor. Let's see what he has to say.

[Mr. Baron responded, "if you've read what that organization is, I have no idea why you'd think his comment on whether a deadline might be met requires mention of his participation on its advisory board."

My response to Mr. Baron:

"Although you might disagree with the conservative politics of American Thinker, you might still want to have a look at a March 5, 2014 article entitled "The Ayatollah's Lobby on K Street?" [by Jordan Schachtel]:

"Has the National Iranian American Council and its founder, Trita Parsi, inserted itself into the debate over Iran sanctions under false pretenses? Has the left been duped and psychologically disarmed by Parsi and the folks at NIAC, who have seemingly tried to appeal to the left's dove-like idealistic sentiments? Substantial evidence points to the conclusion that NIAC’s agenda, far removed from the actual interests of the Iranian-American community at large, displays almost zero daylight between itself and the docket of the “supreme leader’s” theocratic regime.

Trita Parsi and the staff at NIAC have penned articles in several left-wing mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times and The Huffington Post, among many others. Parsi recently lectured at CIA headquarters and has personally met and lobbied former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Parsi, along with the staff at his disposal, claim to be "the voice" of the one million Iranian Americans in the United States, with the stated mission of “advancing the interests of the Iranian American community."

If NIAC’s mission is truly to serve the best interests of the Iranian-American community, it has epically failed to meet that objective. When polled, 99% of Iranian Americans who support a pro-democracy trajectory for Iran expressed that NIAC did not in any way represent their interests. Furthermore, a staggering 99% of respondents also believed that NIAC are simply a lobby for the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic.

Mohsen Makhmalbalf, an established leader in Iran’s Green Movement, said of Parsi, “I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic republic.” When reached for comment, Amir Fakhravar, an Iranian jailed dissident and recipient of the Annie Taylor Journalism Award, said of NIAC, “You cannot find any difference between their statements and the Iranian regime’s statements. Either officially or unofficially, they are following the path of the regime.”

NIAC came to fruition in 1999, when Trita Parsi was at a conference in Cyprus being held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to counteract the sentiments and influence allegedly purported by America’s pro-Israel and anti-regime advocacy groups.
Internal documents, unveiled as a result of the National Iranian American Council’s failed defamation lawsuit against an investigative journalist, reveal that Parsi had been maintaining a close relationship with Iranian defense Minister Javad Zarif for several years."

Also consider the following from a Haaretz (left-wing Israeli) article entitled "Nuclear deal divides Iranian community in America" [by Dan Shadur]:

"Parsi has been following the nuclear deal negotiations closely and clocked many hours talking with U.S. and Iranian negotiators. He supports the deal unreservedly. He believes the deal being cobbled together is the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that it creates a framework for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue, something he views as a positive development."

In short, NIAC has a dog in this fight, and Pickering, who is listed first among its advisory board members, is not a mere "former top U.S. diplomat."

Query: If a former US diplomat was now a leading advisor to AIPAC and lobbying against a deal with Iran, wouldn't her/his association with AIPAC be relevant and deserve mention?"

I subsequently sent an additional email to Mr. Baron:

"And from Commentary, Is NIAC the Iran Lobby?' by Michael Rubin:

'There has been a lot of controversy back-and-forth about whether the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) lobbies for the Islamic Republic of Iran. After an Iranian-American journalist referred to NIAC as a lobby group, NIAC sued him for defamation but ended up losing its case. While at the Washington Times, Eli Lake used documents revealed during that lawsuit’s discovery phase to suggest that NIAC was, indeed, illegally lobbying. Lake’s story apparently forced NIAC to amend its tax returns.

Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s policy director, now appears to push aside any pretense that NIAC is something other than Iran’s lobby. Speaking at the forthcoming “Expose AIPAC” conference, Abdi is featured on the “Training: Constituent Lobbying for Iran” panel. Oops.

Then again, in his university days, NIAC founder Trita Parsi made no secret of his goals.'

Again, if a former US diplomat was now a leading advisor to AIPAC and lobbying against a deal with Iran, wouldn't her/his association with AIPAC be relevant and deserve mention?"

Let's see if WaPo will now be willing to correct the omission . . .]

David Brooks, "The Depravity Factor"

Bless you, David Brooks!

I am usually critical of almost everything that finds its way onto the op-ed page of The New York Times; however, Brooks's "The Depravity Factor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) was a startling exception.

Brooks tells us that there won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes, such as Syria and Libya, and depraved organizations, such as Hamas, are "part of the picture." He tells us "to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them." And he concludes that the "Arab reform process," rather than negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, "is the peace process."

Brooks begins:

"By now you have probably heard about Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. He was the 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida on April 29. He was arrested that day, and the police returned his mutilated body to his family a month later. While in custody, he had apparently been burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out."

Here is a link to the video that the boy's family placed on the Internet and to which Brooks refers. THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD BOY ARE GRAPHIC AND HORRIFYING, AND DO NOT VIEW THIS VIDEO, WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE SEEN BY CHILDREN, IF IT IS APT TO CAUSE YOU MENTAL DISTRESS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7flXwSv9aQ0

I would add that this is far from the only graphic evidence of the brutality of the Assad regime (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/assad-hillarys-reformer.html), and I have been calling upon the Obama administration to recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria for the past two months, but to no avail (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/recall-us-ambassador-to-syria-now-shame.html). Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010, and Obama is reluctant to acknowledge his mistake (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

Brooks states:

"World leaders have tried sweet-talking Syria, calling Bashar al-Assad a friend (Nancy Pelosi) or a reformer (Hillary Clinton)."

But among Americans, Pelosi and Clinton are not the only ones who should be ashamed. Consider the conduct of Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

Kerry wants to be the next secretary of state?

And what about Jimmy Carter, who has often met with Assad and bragged that he has known the Syrian leader since he was a college student (see Peggy Shapiro's "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html).

Today, I am expecting a bloodbath in Syria when Syrians leave the mosques and confront Assad's security forces, which are being assisted by thugs from Hezbollah and counterinsurgency experts from Iran. As I have stated in the past, Assad's days are numbered, notwithstanding the indifference of the Obama administration to this human tragedy.

[To my "friends" from Assad's security apparatus in Damascus who regularly read this blog: Time to start packing your bags, boys.]

You Think You Know When Someone Is Lying? John Kerry Couldn't Read Assad

So you think you know when someone is lying?

Watch Bashar al-Assad's one-hour interview with Charlie Rose, albeit five years old (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/484). Pay particular attention when Assad claims that he had no part in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Do you see any body language suggesting that Assad is prevaricating? The truth is that Assad is a "professional liar", or stated otherwise, a psychopath, and it should have come as no surprise that the Syrian tyrant is willing to arrest, torture and murder those who in recent weeks have taken to the streets in opposition to his regime.

Assad has managed to fool many Westerners into believing that he is a paragon of decency, which in turn prompted Hillary's recent inane declaration: "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml).

As observed by Peggy Shapiro in an American Thinker article entitled "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html), among those noteworthy persons who have come away from meetings with Assad thinking he's a great guy are:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The U.S. and Syria have a shared interest in stability in the region."

• Nancy Pelosi: Assad is a "model Arab leader."

• Jimmy Carter: "In all my conversations with President Assad, whom I've known since he was a college student, I was impressed with [his] eagerness to complete the agreement on the Golan Heights."

• John Kerry: "I remain absolutely convinced there is an opportunity to have a different relationship with Syria."

It is reported that John Kerry is seeking to become Secretary of State when Hillary abandons ship (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/), and, needless to say, Kerry is now backing away from his congenial relationship with the Syrian tyrant. As stated by Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john_kerrys_message_to_syria/2011/03/04/AFZm9rwB_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage):

"In an interview Tuesday, Kerry told me that he had contacted senior Syrian officials to demand an end to the killing. 'I delivered as strong a message as I can that they have to avoid violence and listen to their people and respond,' he said. 'Obviously the way the government has behaved is unacceptable. Sixty-one people killed is terrible, its abhorrant behavior.'”

In my opinion, notwithstanding this belated attempt to make amends, Kerry displayed a horrifying lack of good judgment when cuddling up to Assad in Damascus five times over the past two years, and Kerry should be disqualified from any position involving the future negotiation of U.S. overseas interests.