Iranian Forum, 1.10.2014

The White House campaign to frame Senators who support more sanctions as warmongers is a tactic used by pro-Tehran lobbyists for the past ten years. In a secret memo written by Trita Parsi and sent to his partner in Tehran, he explained why and how the sanctions should be framed as initial step that invariably will lead to war.

—————————————————————-

Iranian newspapers in Tehran are full of praise for Bernadette Meehan, the National Security Council spokeswoman who called the US Senators who support more sanctions against Iran warmongers. According to Huffington Post, Meehan declared:

“If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so,” Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. “Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.”

That the White House has systematically opposed and delayed new sanctions against Iran since Obama took office does not surprise anyone. Here is Senator Menendez’s harsh word in 2011 criticizing the administration for deceiving the Senate and trying to delay new sanction. At that time, Ahmadinejad was president in Iran and no nuclear agreement was signed but the White House was as much opposed to new sanctions as it is today.

However, the White House campaign to frame US Senators as warmongers and equate sanctions as a step toward war, is a war fear-mongering tactic that has been used by pro-Tehran lobbyists for the past ten years. The champion of this campaign is the “National Iranian American Council” (NIAC) led by Trita Parsi. The Governmental press in Iran considers  NIAC as the “Iran lobby” in Washington. (Read NIAC fact book)

In 2007, Parsi sent a secret report to his Tehran based lobby partner and explained why it is useful to “frame sanctions an initial step that invariably will lead to war”.

Parsi’s report to Tehran

During a defamation lawsuit filed by NIAC in 2008 against one of its critics, part of its internal documents became available. One of these documents is a report sent by Trita Parsi to Siamak Namazi in 2007. Namazi,  was at the time partner and managing director of the Tehran-based Atieh Bahar, a company that helps foreign companies do business with the Iranian regime. Atieh has multiple business ties with the Iranian government. (See also, Parsi reported to Tehran)

In this report, Parsi explained the mood toward Iran in the Congress and detailed the activities of anti-war organizations in Washington. Parsi explained NIAC’s efforts to boost the anti-sanction campaign and wrote: “Initial efforts are currently being made to make align the trade groups with the pro-dialogue coalition and frame sanctions an initial step that invariably will lead to war. If such a coalition of pro-trade and pro-dialogue groups can be formed, the current momentum for sanctions may be significantly hampered.”

The report                                                                  

On March 1, 2007, Parsi sent the first report about the U.S. Congress to Tehran and by e-mail asked Siamak: “Any comments on the congress piece? Was it in line with what you wanted? So sorry about the delay, will have the other one for you tonight.”

A day later, Namazi responded: “Thanks. Looking forward to reading what you have to say about AIPAC. And please send it soon!”

Trita responded: “So terribly sorry. You [know] this is not my style, but things have really been hectic lately. I cant wait till the baby comes because I am sure that is paradise compared to the current situation… 50% of the AIPAC piece is written. Will finish it tonight.”

On March 3, Parsi sends him the second report by e-mail and writes, “Let me know your thoughts.”

Here is part of Parsi’s report entitled the “lobby groups”:

As of early 2005, Washington’s heated rhetoric over Iran has attracted the attention of a variety of interest groups eager to prevent the escalation of tensions in the Middle East and the prospects of a war between the US and Iran. These groups have managed to build unprecedented support in Congress in favor of dialogue and against military action among progressive Democrats as well as conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill.

This coalition of pro-dialogue and anti-war entities consists of a diverse group of organizations ranging from arms control organizations, to Iranian American organizations, to religious groups. Key players in this coalition are the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which coordinates a coalition of approximately 50 organizations, MoveOn and the National Iranian American Council.

While these groups have focused extensively on passing measures to reduce the risk for war with Iran, little attention has been paid to efforts to intensify sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, while a momentum exists for anti-war measures, no comparable opportunity exists currently for an anti-sanctions campaign. Nor is the coalition of disarmament, religious and progressive groups best suited to take on this issue. Here, the absence of pro-business interests on Capitol Hill active constitutes a key point of advantage for AIPAC.

Parsi explained the importance of bringing in the pro-trade lobby group and notably USA*Engage:

With the exception of USA Engage, American businesses and oil companies have after September 11 next to eliminated their efforts on Capitol Hill in favor of greater trade and contacts with Iran.

USA Engage is a coalition of approximately 500 major US companies which has retained a distant interest in the Iran issue, though the coalition has devoted little resources towards promoting trade or preventing new sanctions from being imposed. In particular, the recently imposed UN sanctions have granted the sanctions track with Iran new legitimacy and made efforts to oppose such measures on trade grounds more difficult.

However, initial efforts are currently being made to make align the trade groups with the pro-dialogue coalition and frame sanctions an initial step that invariably will lead to war. If such a coalition of pro-trade and pro-dialogue groups can be formed, the current momentum for sanctions may be significantly hampered.

Conclusion

The balance of power on Capitol Hill is currently shifted in favor of sanctions on Iran but against military action. AIPAC continues to seek both military strikes against Iran and draconian sanctions and has benefited from the absence of active lobbying by pro-trade groups. A change in heart by pro-trade coalitions may significantly hamper efforts to have Congress impose new draconian sanctions on Iran. This is great significance since Congressional sanctions are far more difficult to undo than those imposed by the Executive Branch.