This week saw the publication of a two-part hit piece in Tablet magazine purporting to expose the machinations of the “Iran lobby†in Washington. The author, Lee Smith, is apparently not the great baseball closer, but rather a former reporter for Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard and a current fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute (also the home of such luminaries as Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, and Norman Podhoretz). The first piece (titled “Iran’s Man in Washingtonâ€) targets Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, while the second (bearing the equally classy title “The Immigrantâ€) goes after Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). While pitched as an analytical treatment of its targets’ careers, Smith soon slips into overwrought emotional mode, accusing the Leveretts of “trad[ing] their government experience and intellectual credibility for access to the worst elements of a regime that continues to murder its own people in the streets†while arguing that Parsi was “corrupted†by immigrant ambition and a taste for political power.
Smith’s pieces wear their ideology on their sleeve to such a degree that it hardly seems necessary to respond (although the Leveretts have, and Matt Duss has also picked the pieces apart). Regarding the Leveretts, I do not personally agree with all of their writings, and many Iran analysts whom I respect have criticized them for underestimating the Green Movement’s prospects of success. Still, their pessimism does provide a needed counterweight to much of the high-flown commentary we see these days claiming that the Islamic Republic will fall tomorrow if only the U.S. strikes the proper heroic pose, and they certainly deserve better than the transparent smear job that Smith produces, which all but accuses them of being Iranian agents of influence. It is quite obvious that the real reason the Leveretts are being targeted by Smith and his cohort is not they are pessimistic about the Green Movement, but rather that they are staunchly opposed to U.S. military action against Iran (which, ironically, is the main issue on which they agree with the Green Movement).
As for the attack on Parsi, it merely marks the continuation of a neoconservative campaign aimed at silencing any insufficiently hawkish Iranian voices. (I previously wrote about the campaign and its architects here, here, and here, among other places.) Like his allies, Smith drops insinuations of dual loyalty in a way that would clearly be deemed anti-Semitic if applied to a Jewish political figure. He also implies that Parsi is thin-skinned or conspiratorial for identifying his antagonists as neoconservatives — but nearly all of the critics Smith cites are, in fact, neocons, from Eli Lake to Michael Rubin to Reuel Marc Gerecht. (See Jim’s post from last week for more on Rubin’s and Gerecht’s recent antics.) Smith mentions Parsi’s award-winning book on the U.S.-Iran relationship, but bases his critique of the book entirely on reviews in Commentary and Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Quarterly (the latter of which was written by — no surprise — Michael Rubin). Smith does quote a couple Iranians, one of whom, Hassan Daioleslam, is currently involved in a defamation lawsuit with Parsi and has already been dealt with extensively here. Multiple knowledgeable sources have identified Daioleslam as an associate of the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) terrorist group, but he has become the Iranian face of an anti-NIAC campaign driven primarily by Washington neoconservatives. Another Iranian cited in the article, Pooya Dayanim, is an ardent regime change advocate and contributor to National Review Online.
Among the ironies of Smith’s article: he more or less accuses Parsi and the Leveretts of being Iranian agents, while relying heavily on Michael Rubin, a longtime shill for actual Iranian intelligence asset Ahmed Chalabi. He argues (against all evidence) that Parsi only shifted to a pro-human-rights stance in the wake of this summer’s Iranian election crisis, while taking anti-Parsi talking points from a magazine published by Daniel Pipes, who notoriously endorsed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prior to the June elections. (Unsurprisingly, Pipes has written a glowing review of Smith’s new book, the basic message of which — as Matt Duss correctly notes — is the familiar claim that Arabs only understand force.) He accuses Parsi and the Leveretts of indifference to the lives and wishes of the Iranian people, while sharing an institutional home with the likes of Norman “Bomb Iran†Podhoretz. And so on.
While Smith’s pieces are predictable pieces of neocon agitprop, the venue in which they were published is more interesting. Tablet is one of the new breed of Jewish cultural journals and websites that have sprung up in recent years, aiming to offer what it calls “a new read on Jewish life†more in tune with the sensibilities of the younger generation. Like its peers Jewcy and Heeb, Tablet is relentlessly progressive in its sensibility and politics — at least as far as domestic politics are concerned.
But foreign policy is another matter; insofar as the magazine offers political coverage of Israel and the Middle East, it is relentlessly conventional and nearly always hawkish. (Nearly all of their foreign policy articles are written by hawks of either the liberal or neocon variety — Adam Kirsch, Seth Lipsky, and Michael Weiss, etc.) Smith’s pieces, which could have been ripped from the Weekly Standard or Commentary, are, sadly, par for the course.
I suspect a lot of this has to do with money. Several people who have personal experience with Tablet and its predecessor, Nextbook, have told me that the group’s funders are both significantly older and more right-wing than the rest of the operation — a common pattern in such organizations. Hence the tendency to delegate all discussion of Israel to the hawks, in order to keep the funders satisfied. But while this sort of compromise might be necessitated by internal politics, it has clearly had a destructive intellectual effect on the magazine’s content. It’s hard to provide “a new read on Jewish life†when all discussion of Israel and foreign policy as a whole is confined within the narrow limits deemed acceptable by the right.
Lee Smith, Hassan Dai, and Bill Kristal are all right about their facts. Trita Parsi is an Iranian Imposter working for the regime and all Iranians know that. And I think your publication is also working with Trita since you are always indirectly supporting the facist regime under the pretext of "AntiWAr"!
Yeah, Anyone who you don't agree with is an Iranian Government agent. Your desperation is comical.
By all Iranians you mean Iranians who live in LA? MKO supporters, communists or monarchists? How many of you are there again?
Didn't you see the millions who marched in Tehran against the Mullahs?
The progressive movement in US is keeping their silence when it comes to human rights and freedom for Iran. They have one view Neo-con this new-con that.
The ani-war movement in US has been FOOLED by Iran.
Roya, do you remember the Shah and his US-trained and supplied Savat with fondness? Were the United States and Great Britain correct in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mossadegh? Would you like to return to the times when the energy resources of Iran benefited American and British corporations and a tiny Iranian elite, rather than the Iranian people?
Do you want Iran to enjoy the Iraq experience under US occupation? A million dead, four million displaced? You should understand that the policy of the US government strengthens the mullahs and weakens the reform movement. Everyone knows that. The real enemy of American is nationalism and the use of resources for internal development, rather than multinational corporate enrichment. The worst nightmare for American planners would be an outbreak of genuine democratic development in which the Iranian people get to decide how Iranian resources are utilized. What we want to engineer is another compliant dictatorial regime — something like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, both allies of the US and both practitioners of administrative torture and the violent repression of dissent. Is that what you would like to see in Iran?
I have known Trita Parsi since early 1990s from Sweden, our views about Iran and the current regime are very different and he was one of the main sources behind the split and finally end of the "Democracy Networkd Of Iran http://dni.abdolian.com " in 2001. But, having said that, he is no agent of the Islamic republic, he strongly believe in a non-violent co-existence of the US/Iranian government that will eventually pave the way for a democratic Iran.
It is interesting that the Israeli lubby is so strongly going after him because of his knowledge of the US government, his contacts inside and outside the IRI regime and with some Israeli activists. He is dangerous because he knows how to play this game in the field that AIPAC and other pro-Likhud activists want to play solo.
Lets not get conned into fighting yet another war for Israel. No war with Iran!
Profile of Lee Smith:
http://www.hudson.org/smith
Israel's 'beef' with Iran stems from their assumed right to bomb the crap out of anybody and everybody they feel like( see Gaza, Lebanon, etc), with no possibility of their victims fighting back. The mere chance of a country developing the means to protect their own citizens is unacceptable! But there's also the little fact that no evidence exists that Iran – at least according to America's own spy agencies – are even developing nukes.
But the claim that Israel is pissy about 'terrorists' – as the Israelis drop cluster bombs, torture prisoners and slaughter civillians by the bucket full – can only elicit howls of laughter. What's next, big talk about American 'family values?' LMAO!
God Bless America.
Among meany concerns of Israel over IRI is Iran’s progress in Science and Technology. That is what profoundly dismays the fanatical right wingers in Israel.
See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-…
Iran outperforming all of the countries of the world in scientific contributions in 2009? China included? Wow?
It reveals Iran’s scientific contribution jumped from about 100 in 1985 to over 10'000 in 2009 (while, in the same period the "Defanged" Iraq’s fell from 250 to 110). These numbers are nightmarishly worrisome for the psychopathic warmongers Israelis. Instead of celebration of a small triumph of humanity, they are considered as an “existential threat”.
The numbers also encourages them to repeat the Iraqi scenario again…..this time in Iran.
The full URL is:
newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html
I believe it was in 1977 or 1978 when the Israeli leadership decided that Iran can never be allowed to modernise or industrialise because of the shahs increasing hostility towards israels genocide campaign….The next year the shah was overthrown and Khomeini was flown back to Iran on an air-france jet chartered by the US government…..Can anaybody put the empty pieces together there?…
There’s an evil lobby in the District of Corruption that controls the U.S. Government. It’s called the Israel Lobby!
Why bother discussing internal Iranian politics? It makes no difference to us. Iran could elect Nelson Mandela as President and we would still bomb them. We will bomb them because the Zionists who are hateful, irrational people want to destroy Iran and America is controlled by the Zionists. The best thing one can say about the Zionists is that they are paranoid; actually it is much darker than that – they are sociopaths. They hate and envy all of their neighbors and crave their destruction. Their mindset is a toxic mix of religiouly based need for revenge and an extreme narcissism and sense of privilege. The West must disarm/disestablish Israel or accept nuclear war soon.
Where do you stand on human rights for Iranians? Do they the same right as you have here? To a fair election?
Mr. Parsi knows how to play the game, that’s I agree with you, but for who? for the dictators in Tehran.
I met Mr. Parsi back in 2003. He had one concern: protecting the Iranian government interest
Stupid article! Iranian lobby! So called anti-war.. No one believes you!
Lee Smith, Hassan Dai, and Bill Kristal are all right about their facts. Trita Parsi is an Iranian Imposter working for the regime and all Iranians know that. And I think your publication is also working with Trita since you are always indirectly supporting the facist regime under the pretext ofwedding limo
It is a sub-factor of <video>, supposed to make the video timeline more accessible. These captions are loaded from a separate textual content file (a WebVTT file) and printed over the bottom of the video show. Past captions although, the <track> factor can be utilized for any kind of interaction with the video timeline. Sno Fertility Clinic