The War on Trita Parsi
Trita Parsi heads the National Iranian American Council, a non-profit representing the interests of the Iranian-American community. NIAC is an opponent of the Iranian regime’s human rights abuses, condemning discrimination against religious minorities, the imprisonmnet of dissidents, and the lack of due process in the Iranian justice system.
NIAC also, like all the major Iranian opposition figures I’m aware of, opposes the idea of punitive military actions or harsh sanctions against Iran. This could have led people to make the sensible observation that whatever form of government exists in Iran is likely to have a conception of Iranian national security interests that are at odd with the Israel’s conception of its own national security interests and with America’s efforts to be the hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf. Instead, as Nick Baumann observes, it’s sparked an odd smear campaign against Parsi, in which Michael Goldfarb and Jeffrey Goldberg—soon to be joined, according to my information, by a larger set of right-wing pundits and “reporters”—are attempting to paint Parsi as a tool of the Iranian government. In Goldfarb’s formulation, Parsi is “the Iranian regime’s man in Washington” whereas Goldberg says he “does a lot of leg-work for the Iranian regime” though perhaps without direction or funding from the Iranian government.
Goldfarb’s version of the smear is, it seems to me, wronger. But Goldberg’s is, in its way, more contemptible for being so vague, shifty, and ultimately impossible to disprove. 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. To be fair, in criticizing Iranian human rights violations NIAC has been known to cite the work of international recognized human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and for all I know G&G are sufficiently through the rabbit hole that they see Amnesty, HRW, and NIAC as all part of a vast anti-Israel Islamist plot that only attacks the Iranian regime as part of a vast smokescreen. It’s worth noting, however, that there’s an important underlying dispute here. Some people, also known as people who know what they’re talking about, think an unprovoked US or Israeli preventive military strike on Iran would be a huge gift to the Iranian government and a crushing blow to the opposition. Others, who I hope are liars rather than fools, claim to believe that this is wrong. Parsi is, I know, in the former camp. So it’s worth revisiting Jeffrey Goldberg’s record as a prognosticator on this sort of question:
There is not sufficient space…for me to refute some of the arguments made in Slate over the past week against intervention, arguments made, I have noticed, by people with limited experience in the Middle East (Their lack of experience causes them to reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected)
Experience!
25 Responses to “The War on Trita Parsi”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Michael Goldfarb and Jeffrey Goldberg—soon to be joined, according to my information, by a larger set of right-wing pundits and “reporters”—are attempting to paint Parsi as a tool of the Iranian government.
Projection.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
I miss the days when only Eli Lake was a tool of the Iranian government.
I caught the Goldberg smear last week. As opening salvo in a smear campaign? Goldberg looked more classy when he didn’t blog.
Anyway, it will work. Even if it is refuted, Parsi will be the guy “some claim is is an agent of Iranian influence”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
through the rabbit hole
“through the looking glass” or “down the rabbit hole”
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Goldfarb’s job is to make something up every single day to attack liberals, and hope that some of it sticks. He probably hasn’t given the slightest thought to whether what he’s saying is accurate. If it looks like red meat, he throws it on the grill.
Goldberg seems to genuinely believe that he understands the Iranian political culture better than the Iranian opposition, and is therefore entitled to smear the actual Iranian opposition in order to serve the people of Iran.
I’m not sure which one is more contemptible, but Goldfarb is a fairly common species of rat in the DC ecosystem. He’s a partisan hack, and easily discounted. Goldberg is part of the Beltway journalism axis of evil — one of the calm, smooth, well-connected nonpartisan “experts” whose purpose in life is to sell the mainstream media on whatever horrifying stupid and homicidal idea is currently being promoted by the neocons.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Others, who I hope are liars rather than fools, claim to believe that this is wrong.
This point should lead to widespread questioning of the neocons’ ostensible goal of political liberalization in the middle east. They would rather have repressive autocracies in place if the autocracies oblige them by providing pretexts for endless Israeli wars of aggression.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
Even if it is refuted, Parsi will be the guy “some claim is is an agent of Iranian influence”.
Some claim that Jeffrey Goldberg would call his own mother a self-hating Jew if there were a pony or two on offer.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
I was sure that you had done another fortunate type — “through the rabbi hole” — but it turns out it was just me.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
MY — I don’t know anything about Trita Parsi, but your post implies that Jeffrey Goldberg supports an Israeli or US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, whereas in fact he’s said repeatedly (e.g., most recently, albeit briefly, here) that he thinks it’d be a terrible and counter-productive idea, just as you do.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Slightly off topic, but I see our friend Jamie Kirchick has a predictable little column over at TNR about how J-Street faces a “choice” between its extreme grass roots and the sensible centrist path. It’s pretty much a search-and-replace of the sort of thing TNR used to run about the Democratic party between 2002 and 2005, and it includes this gem:
If the organization wants to be a serious political player, it will have no choice but to alienate many of its fervent supporters
There’s some real insight into politics for you! A real machiavel, that one.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Wait, he hasn’t yet?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
I haven’t come across that Goldberg quote before, thank you for that. I read his blog a lot, and while he sometimes has some interesting insights he’s a little too free to throw around accusations of hidden motivations and accusations of bias.
#8 is right, Goldberg doesn’t support military action but I believe that he supports sanctions.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias: Goldfarb’s version of the smear is, it seems to me, wronger. But Goldberg’s is, in its way, more contemptible for being so vague, shifty, and ultimately impossible to disprove. 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. To be fair, in criticizing Iranian human rights violations NIAC has been known to cite the work of international recognized human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and for all I know G&G are sufficiently through the rabbit hole that they see Amnesty, HRW, and NIAC as all part of a vast anti-Israel Islamist plot that only attacks the Iranian regime as part of a vast smokescreen. It’s worth noting, however, that there’s an important underlying dispute here. Some people, also known as people who know what they’re talking about, think an unprovoked US or Israeli preventive military strike on Iran would be a huge gift to the Iranian government and a crushing blow to the opposition. Others, who I hope are liars rather than fools, claim to believe that this is wrong. Parsi is, I know, in the former camp. [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Goldberg’s issued kind of a non-retraction retraction, generally blaming everyone for not understanding what “legwork” means and then repeating the charge.
Link here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/trita-parsi-iran-man-in-washington
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’m a fan of CBS News’ motto (if not CBS News): “Experience you can trust.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
One can argue that Jefferey Goldberg does A LOT OF leg work for the apartheid state of Israel – an uber racist genocidal regime, as documented numerous times by the UN officials.
Goldberg is one of the main reason why Atlnatic Monthly is losing subscribers. Fatso knows this … that’s why he keeps asking folks to subscribe to the print magazine in every other posts. QUITE CLEARLY, he’s afraid to lose his job; after all who’d pay to have this one-trick-pony “report” in any other magazine?
Atlantic is done.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
If Goldberg could promise me that McMegan was run out of town on a rail, I’d gladly pay up.
At least Israel has universal health care.
And their religious crazies are treated, rightly, as such.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The irony about this is that Trita Parsi gets cold-shouldered by sections of the the Iranian ex-pat community for being far too sympathetic to Israel. He is really very sympathetic to Israel, spent lots of time talking to high-level Israelis for Treacherous Alliance. It is clear from the book that he sees Israel and Iran as natural allies, and looks forward to those days returning once the uni-polar aberration passes (see Fisk’s recent reporting on China’s increasing influence in the Gulf; those days may be closer than we think).
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[...] Indeed. And let’s not forget that he pushed fictitious Iraq/Al Qaeda connections almost as hard as Stephen Hayes himself. And, of course: In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality. [...]
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I subscribed to the Atlantic for almost a decade. I like my reading a little more in-depth and moderate than I like my blog reading! McArdle and Goldberg and Kaplan and a recent Bowden article that was more product placement for the Air Force than journalism convinced my measly 20 bucks could be better spent somewhere else. I like moderates, I even like some smart cons (e.g., Robert Kaplan prior to 9/11), but hacks are something I can get from the radio
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“It should be said that Jeffrey Goldberg is on record as an opponent of military action against Iran.”
It should also be said that a mere four days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg favorably linked to this WSJ op-ed that strongly suggests an Israeli attack on Iran is both inevitable and justified.
He is on the record as opposing military action against Iran because he thinks it would be ineffective. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Goldberg is willing to defend Israel or the US, ex post facto, for launching a military action against Iran, and smear anyone who criticizes the action.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
NIAC trains Iranian government created “NGOs” and blocks funds to independent Iranian NGOs.
The Iranian press calls NIAC the Iranian Lobby.
More on Parsi’s close relationship with the Iranian Government.
More on Parsi and the Iranian Government.
Parsi blames Israel for every problem in the middle east and exculpates Iran completely.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Dave123, do you realise that iranianlobby.com was founded by a former/current MKO terrorist member? The same group that is a staunch advocate for harsh sanctions/military action on Iran?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
[...] related to all of this, Matt Yglesias and Mother Jones‘ Nick Baumann document a defamatory and reckless (though quite typical) [...]
November 5th, 2009 at 1:46 am
As an Iranian, I must admit, it’s odd to see Trita Parsi has more defenders in the American media than in Iranian community. Trita Pasi, is known to be Iranian regime agent. He never, in Farsi, came against anything regime did. He has never, in Farsi, has come out in support of religious minorities, or other human rights issues.
I dont’ know the author of this blog..I did gogle on Trita Parsi, since there buzz in the community that Parsi’s days are over and finally Americans will not be naive to listen to him…so that’s how i got to this blog…I don’t know the other characters who are behind exposing Parsi.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:52 am
farah: I’d be interested in hearing more of your sort of take on these things.
Jeffrey Goldberg, on the other hand, seems to think this makes sense:
“On the larger question of whether Trita Parsi functions as a lobbyist for the Iranian regime, based on what I know, I’d have to say yes: He has argued consistently against any sanctions against Iran, and an end to sanctions is obviously what the Iranian regime wants. So he is working on behalf of a stated interest of the Iranian government. Yes, he also criticizes Iran’s human rights abuses, but it’s been suggested recently that it is possible to lobby for a country while criticizing it at the same time.”
Notice how “lobbies on behalf of Iran” has morphed into “lobbies on behalf of the Iranian regime” simply on the basis that he argues for an end to sanctions, and anyone who does that is working on behalf of the Iranian government. Hey! I guess I’m working on the behalf of the Iranian government. Who’da thunk it?
I can’t believe Goldberg’s thinking is really this sloppy though. He’s got Trita Parsi figured out in his head, and is willing to kneecap logic to make the answer come out that way.