NIAC’s PR Offensive
Nov 19th, 2009http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/172412
As the NIAC and Trita Parsi story unfolds in the wake of Eli Lake’s bombshell story, it is interesting to note just how it might be that many on the Left are simultaneously reaching the same conclusions (e.g., it’s all a neocon conspiracy, Parsi is besieged by an MEK agent).
On Parsi and NIAC’s side is Brown Lloyd James, a PR firm with much experience in this area. The firm’s website tells us: “Brown Lloyd James handled the international launch of Al Jazeera English.” And we also know from news reports that “Brown Lloyd James, a public relations firm with offices in London and New York, has opened an office in Tripoli. It is reported to have placed articles by Colonel Gadaffi in American newspapers.” So they have the best of the best when it comes to representing these sorts of clients.
It should come as no surprise then that even before the Washington Times story was released, NIAC was laying the groundwork to scream foul. Back on November 3, Parsi sent out a fundraising letter, which tipped the hand on the upcoming defense and those who would be telling a sympathetic tale:
Dear NIAC Friend,
When we launched the Truth out 2010 Campaign two weeks ago, we never expected the overwhelming response we got. Our sincere thanks to all those who responded. Clearly, our many supporters are just as tired of the smear campaign against NIAC as we are.
One thing that those behind the smears seem to have in common is a belief that Iranian Americans shouldn’t have a say in America’s approach to Iran simply because they are Iranian Americans. Not only is this ridiculous and offensive, it has a racist undertone with innuendos of dual loyalty.
See for instance what ultra-conservative Martin Kramer said at an AIPAC conference in 2009. Kramer argued that Iranian Americans tend to still have family in Iran and are therefore easily intimidated into backing Tehran, saying: “[W]e have to be extremely cautious about what we take away from Iranian Diaspora communities when it comes to understanding Iran. Many of these communities desperately want access to their own country. And it dramatically tilts their analysis toward accommodation.”
There has been a flurry of articles by fair-minded American journalists in the media that defend NIAC, push back and do not allow these smears to go unanswered. Just today, the Huffington Post published an article uncovering the true motives behind the smears — stating that they “were dishonest at best and defamatory at worst,” and “as NIAC’s voice grew louder in foreign policy circles, so too did the vehemence of its critics.”
Other influential journalists have also rejected the allegations against NIAC:
Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic:
“The implication that [Trita Parsi] is somehow a tool of the regime is unfair, untrue and malicious.”
Spencer Ackerman, Washington Independent:
“Any American reporter who paid any attention to the U.S. debate over the Iranian election quoted Parsi and NIAC, constantly, denouncing Ahmadinejad.”
Matt Yglesias, Think Progress:
“What can be seen, right out in the open and on the record, is that NIAC has consistently criticized human rights abuses by the Iranian government and agitated for liberalization, fair elections, and decent treatment of the population of Iran.”
Daniel Luban, The Faster Times:
“Why, then, is [Parsi] being attacked as a stooge for the Iranian regime? The answer is simple: while Parsi has harshly criticized the regime’s actions, he has joined Iran’s leading opposition figures in opposing the use of sanctions or military force against Iran, on the grounds that they would be likely simply to kill innocent Iranian civilians while strengthening the regime’s hold on power. For the Iran hawks, this is a mortal sin.”
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com calls NIAC’s attackers “neocon character assassins.”
As part of our Truth in 2010 Campaign, we are providing a Facts vs Myths section on our website. It’s a great resource to find out the truth about NIAC’s work. Make sure you study it and tell your friends — nothing is more effective in fighting smear than the truth!
Your loyalty and support is what has gotten our community this far — so, please don’t stop now. Please continue to support NIAC by donating $20.10 or more to the 2010 Campaign — and remember, all your donations are tax-deductible.
But don’t just donate. Make sure you email the Huffington Post article and this email to all your friends. Post it on your Facebook status. Tweet about it. And talk to your friends about the work NIAC is doing!
Momentum is building in our favor, but that doesn’t mean our work is over. We have to continue our offensive in order to meet our commitment to you of dispelling myths and falsehoods by 2010.
As always, thank you for your support. We look forward to sharing more good news with you in the near future!
Sincerely,
Trita Parsi, PhD
Weeks before the story actually broke, the groundwork for the defense was being laid. And it is interesting that just after the story did break, Andrew Sullivan rushed forward with the very same “dual loyalty” argument. Luban stepped up to smear a Parsi critic as a terrorist. And so it went as some in the Left blogosphere struggled mightily to paint Parsi as the innocent victim and somehow the friend of the Greens (neatly sidestepping the conspiracy to defund the same). That sort of smooth-running rebuttal doesn’t just happen on its own, it is fair to conclude, and you can’t say Parsi and NIAC aren’t getting their money’s worth from their PR team
Well let us assume that all fingers pointing at Trita Parsi, as a spy for Islamic republic, are evil ones and wrong.
As an Iranian I know the Islamic regime. They are very subversive. They plan for their moves in phases. And they are merciless when they have the overhand and they have a lot of money.
They differentiated themselves from other fractions of the opposition to the Shah by the trust they had in lobby.
The history of this goes back into the time of constitution revolution in Iran 1905 when Islamic opposition to that sought support at the Tsars court thanks to a tiny lobby they had. But they failed.
Back in the cold war days USSR backed the communist party of Iran. The Islamic movement sought back up in Egypt 1963 pointless and failed.
It was only in 1971 when they started lobby acting on US soil for real. This time a great success. Google on the name of MR Ibrahim Yazdi as the father of Islamic lobby in US.
That was the beginning of an era of clash of ambitions in my country way over the head of laymen. USSR made some influences and partly provoked the hostage taking of US personal in Tehran1980. Since then the Islamic Republic invested astronomic amount of money in regrouping and reconstruction of its lobby on US soil. In fact not just one but a meshwork of structures with vast levels and missions.
The lobby they had between 1971-1980 was made of students with clear Islamic agenda. But they turned their backs to the regime when they grasped the reality of the monster they helped to release from the Pandora box.
The reinvestment surged 1996. With clear inspiration from the Israeli lobbies and encouraged by the experience of Kuwait in making US react fiercely against Saddam in gulf war. So there is a strong meshwork of lobbies working for them. You defend Trita Parsi. Cool. But do not deny the existence of such. The real falsifiers would be those who deny the whole concept