Bringing Down the Mullahs : By Dan Rabkin - FrontPageMagazine.com

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Potkin Azarmehr, an Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activist, joined me for an interview that I did for FrontPage Magazine. He is a representative of the Confederation of Iranian Students and Graduates in the United Kingdom, a member of the Azerbaijani Movement for a United Democratic Iran, and a member of the Iranian Enterprise Institute. He has appeared on CNN, Voice of America, BBC, Sky News, and Al-Jazeera. Mr. Azarmehr also recently participated in the Struggle for Democracy in the Islamic World conference in Rome and was an official guest of the U.S. State Department on the first tour of America for Iranian expatriates since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. You can read his blog at http://azarmehr.blogspot.com.

Rabkin: Potkin Azarmehr, thank you for joining me for this interview. Azarmehr: Thank you for having me Dan.
Rabkin: To start off, can you tell us a bit about your background and how events in your life unfolded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran?
Azarmehr: I think the turning point in my life was the Islamic “Cultural Revolution” in 1980. Unlike most of my family and friends, I had stayed away from the mass frenzy that gripped the Iranian nation in 1979. Ever since I was a child I have had a distrust of organized religion and unlike my elders who kept telling me “You are just a kid, what do you know?” I believed we were heading for a disaster.
Until the “Cultural Revolution” in 1980 I remained an observer, just watching what was happening to my country. I would go to different political party meetings and gatherings, but mainly to watch and digest what each group was talking about. Even though I was still a teenager, the “Cultural Revolution” to me was wrong, period. It was a case of black and white - I could no longer sit on the fence.
The Islamists had the majority throughout Iranian society, except at the universities. The majority of Iranian students at the time were secular and leftist. The Islamists couldn’t tolerate this situation so they gave all secular groups and societies a three-day deadline to vacate the campuses. The universities were also to be shut down for at least two years and the syllabi had to change to conform to the Islamists’ Islamic interpretations. During these three days I went to the main university, Tehran University. There were constant clashes between those defending the universities and the thugs which kept marching around the campus threatening to “cut off the ears” of non-Islamic students. These clashes were minor, however, compared to the final day. During the three days I watched thugs who could not read or write – I could tell when they were ripping wall posters which had no pictures – screaming about how universities should be run.
There were also gangs of thugs who attacked the book sellers who were outside of the universities. After the revolution all groups and parties had bookstalls along Revolution Avenue. Even though I was a kid, a teenager not affiliated with any political parties, I knew this was wrong. I always thought a book is for reading, you either like it or you don’t, but you don’t rip it up or burn it.
I got a close shave from thugs wielding clubs and knives who attacked a bookseller one day. Some people and I could see the thugs burning and ransacking some bookstalls further up the road as we were helping this one guy put his books away into his metal box. To this day, I have no idea and no interest as to what sort of books the guy was selling, but the important thing for me was to save the books so people could read and decide for themselves. As the thugs got closer everyone started running away. I was so frightened I froze, but I think that saved my life because by standing still they didn’t think I was one of the people who were helping the booksellers. They ended up chasing and savagely beating up those who had ran.
The final day of the deadline, on which the main assault took place, was the most frightening day of my life. I laid in a joob (old, dried out canals on the side of the road in Tehran that used to be used for carrying water) to avoid the bullets and stones which were flying above my head. I heard later that 16 people were killed that day and many more had been arrested, including three of my friends. Most of those who were arrested were made to overstay their prison sentences and many, including my friends, were executed in the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988.
After all of that, I left Iran for England where I have lived ever since. Here I continued to learn about different Iranian political groups. I knew I wanted to be active against the Islamic Republic, but I didn’t know which group to join until I was introduced to (former Iranian Prime Minister) Dr. (Shapour) Bakhtiar. He was a secular politician who had been a critic of the Shah for most of his life. He had been in prison for six years in total during the Shah’s rule and was banned from leaving the country for 10 years. Yet, his belief in secularism made him the only distinguished figure in Iranian politics who stood up against the mass frenzy led by Islamists. He was known for saying “the dictatorship of the Na’elins” - footwear worn by the mullahs before they became super wealthy – “will be worse than the dictatorship of the boots” - referring to the Shah’s generals.
Dr. Bakhtiar accepted to be the Shah’s last prime minister, but his premiership lasted only 37 days. He was betrayed by the Shah’s generals who were headed by General Qarabaghi. General Qarabaghi had made a deal with the mullahs behind the scenes with the full approval of Jimmy Carter’s administration. Carter had sent General Huyser to Iran to persuade the Shah’s generals not to resist the revolution. When the Marxist Fedaian and the MEK took over an ordnance depot with the help of the air cadets, Bakhtiar ordered the generals to put down the mutiny. Instead, owing to Carter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top generals declared a statement of neutrality in the unfolding events. The revolutionaries were now armed and government institutions started, one by one, to fall. General Qarabaghi left Iran safely and led a comfortable life after the revolution.
Bakhtiar managed to flee from Iran six months after his downfall and appeared in France, a country he loved very much. He had been educated in France and during his student years had joined the French Resistance against Hitler. He spoke French better than most French and always said France is like his second country. When Bakhtiar became the prime minister I immediately warmed up to him, but my family thought differently of him. As a kid watching the events unfold I just kept quiet for their sake. In England, however, I had no such restrictions. I felt free to support the man I believed made the most sense. Bakhtiar announced the formation of the National Movement of Iranian Resistance (NMIR) as a secular opposition movement to the mullahs.
In 1991, Bakhtiar was murdered by the ‘moderate’ (Iranian President) Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s agents with the collusion of (French President) Mitterand’s socialist government on August 6th. After his murder his organization struggled to survive. He was an irreplaceable figure and the regime knew exactly why he had to be killed.
In 1996, I saw potential in the use of the internet in disseminating political ideas and set up NMIR’s website, one of the first Iranian political websites. However, after Dr. Bakhtiar’s murder, NMIR was not functioning as an organization any more as there were no funds and everyone was demoralized. The website, however, enabled me to become part of a network of a new generation of activists.
On July 9, 1999, to everyone’s surprise and after two decades of “cultural revolution” and brainwashing, student uprisings took place across 19 cities in Iran. It was like a dream come true. After two decades of total repression in Iran’s universities against any secular activity, the students were shouting and demanding a secular democratic regime. The protests went on for 6 days before ‘reformist’ (Iranian President) Khatami’s government crushed them. However, this had sparked a new dawn for the pro-democracy movement in Iran. As an ex-pat who had become bi-lingual and bi-cultural, I saw it as my duty to contact the combatants inside Iran and use my skills to promote their struggle. And without going into too much detail at this stage, that is what I have been doing since 1999.
Rabkin: How are things inside of Iran today?
Azarmehr: Let me just give you news headlines inside Iran from yesterday. Of course, this is the type of news that you do not hear in the Western mass media for reasons that I have never understood.
- According to the government’s own figures, 650,000 citizens of Tehran have taken part in the second round of the farce elections for the Majlis (Iranian parliament), that is less than 8% of those eligible to vote! And this is also despite the constant calls to the faithful that it is their religious duty to vote.
- Three Iranian teenagers, aged 12, 16, and 17, in Ilam are amongst the protesters who have been shot dead in a general strike throughout the town happening right now.
- A Friday prayer imam in Zahedan has been injured during an assassination attempt.
- Students at Sahand University of Tabriz have staged a hunger strike and sit in. 17 have already been transferred to hospital.
-Workers of Avangan (an Iranian power generation company) in Arak have closed the Tehran-Qum highway protesting against the fact that their wages have not been paid for months.
- Taxi drivers in Kerman are on strike because they have not been able to keep up with rising prices.
- Iranian teacher and political prisoner Arzhang Davoodi, sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, is on a hunger strike after having been moved from Evin prison to the even more notorious Rajaii-Shahr prison, where he is now amongst the most dangerous criminals.
These are just one day’s headlines. Dan, do you get the picture? The Iranian people do not want this regime any more. Dissent and the pro-democracy movement are alive and kicking. The only problems are the lack of leadership and direction and building an alternative that can encompass all layers of Iranian society in a final push to get rid of the Islamic Republic.
Rabkin: Many Western so-called experts on Iran claim that change in Iran should come from within the regime, not from outside of it. In other words, they believe that if another “reformist” like Khatami comes to power, all of the world’s concerns with respect to Iran will be subside. What are your views on that theory?
Azarmehr: I believe change should come from within Iran, but not from within the regime. Also, as with most other social upheavals, we will need some outside help.
Forget about change from within the regime. Let me give you two small examples on how futile Khatami's eight years were.
During the time when Khatami was president and the "reformists" had an absolute majority in the parliament, two bills were passed by the Islamic assembly. One was to raise the age of legal marriage for girls from 9-years-old to 12. Another was to allow women to go abroad for education without having to get permission from their father or husband.
Both bills were vetoed by the Guardian Council. This is a very closed system. Nothing substantial will be achieved from within the system without some real pressure.
But, yes, perhaps a lot of international concerns with respect to the Islamic Republic will subside because the likes of Khatami are experts in arranging an attractive shop window to deceive the outside world with and attract the “useful idiots.”
Rabkin: In your opinion, what is the best way to bring real change to Iran? What can people in the West do to help?
Azarmehr: Dan, I am so glad you said people! I am a firm believer in the fact that we should appeal, first and foremost, to international public opinion and to people in the West before going to their politicians. At the end of the day, it will be public opinion which will put pressure on Western politicians to act. Otherwise, they will just seek their own short-term interests and deals.
Here is what we should do in the West to help:
We should appeal to and mobilize the students and academics in the West, because the Islamic Republic suppresses academics and students in Iran.
We should appeal to and mobilize the trade unions and workers in the West, because the Islamic Republic suppresses workers and trade unions in Iran.
We should appeal to and mobilize women in the West, because the Islamic Republic suppresses Iran’s women.
We should appeal to and mobilize writers, artists, and performers in the West, because the Islamic Republic threatens the freedom of these people both inside and outside of Iran.
We should appeal to and mobilize journalists in the West, because the Islamic Republic kills and imprisons journalists.
We should appeal to and mobilize those around the globe who believe in freedom of religion, because the Islamic Republic suppresses people of other faiths, and even Shiites who do not accept the interpretations of the ruling clerics.
We should appeal to and mobilize those who are against the execution of minors and homosexuals and are against human rights abuses, because these types of things are rampant in the Islamic Republic.
We should enlighten and mobilize the left, because the Islamic Republic is not the “progressive” champion of the poor as some of the leftists in the West imagine. This is the same mistake that the Iranian left made and they paid a very heavy price for their mistake. The left in Iran were amongst the first victims of the religious tyranny that massacred them. The Ayatollahs hate no one more than the atheist socialists.
I believe we can appeal to and mobilize everyone around the world. We just need the means to be heard.
We should create a situation similar to the anti-apartheid movement as I have always believed the Islamic Republic is an apartheid state. Not a racial one, but a religious one where the rights of Iran’s citizens are determined by their religion and their conformity to the state interpretation of religion.
In my experience we have had two major difficulties in doing these things: the mass media and the Islamic Republic’s well-funded and well-organized lobbyists.
Rabkin: Potkin, could you speak in more detail about how the media and these lobbyists are the problem?
Azarmehr: It is difficult to mobilize public opinion if people don’t have a background in Iranian issues. If the pro-democracy movement in Iran doesn’t get its fair share of airtime it makes our job so much more difficult. For some reason the media doesn’t think reporting on Iran’s pro-democracy movement is “fashionable” or “marketable” – these are words used by media people themselves whom I have met.
Take an event as significant as the student uprising in 1999 in Iran. 19 cities see massive protests for six days, but we had to pull our hair out to get the BBC to report on this. Finally, they did report on it two days after it had begun, but on the fourth day they referred to it as “mob rule.” A noble and peaceful pro-democracy movement, which only demanded the basic rights everyone takes for granted in the West, in the eyes of BBC editors, was presented as “mob rule.” After that there was nothing about the crackdown or the arrest of 2,000 students in just one day. It was not “marketable” news in the eyes of the BBC’s news editors.
Or take (Iranian investigative journalist Akbar) Ganji’s hunger strike. I have an email from the BBC saying it’s not always possible to fit all of the world’s news in the time limit of the 10 O’Clock National News. Ganji was on hunger strike for 70 days. I cannot believe that in 70 days Ganji’s hunger strike was not as important as some kitten being stuck in a tree, something that I have seen make the 10 O’Clock News!
Or take last year’s police campaign against “thugs and hoodlums.” Hooded police were bursting into houses around Iran in the early hours of the morning. They would drag people out of their homes half-naked and then savagely beat them up in public. There were lots of pictures of this all over the internet. There are numerous videos of the film footage on YouTube, but nothing in the mass media!
The Confederation of Iranian Students managed to bring one of these victims to the UK. This guy named Pourya Fazlollahi is not a thug or hoodlum. He is one of the most gentle and polite youngsters you will ever meet. We have film footage and pictures of Pourya which show the visible marks of beatings on his body. Pourya is now pursuing a football career in the UK and things are looking promising for him as Tottenham F.C. (an English soccer team in the Premier League) is interested in him.
More than that, the very police chief who was heading this vicious campaign against “immoral people” has himself been caught in a brothel with six prostitutes who claimed the police chief made them pray naked while he watched them from behind.
Dan, don’t you think this is all very interesting news? But, no, unless the story is something that is anti-American, no one in the media cares. We had CBS come and do an interview and filming with Pourya, but it was never aired because they said there is other, more “marketable,” news at the moment.
As for the lobbyists, unlike people like us who have day jobs and live on shoestring budgets, they are very well-funded groups and individuals. Their job is to portray a desirable image of the Islamic Republic wherever and whenever it is appropriate. So in universities, where there are a lot of left-wing activists, they go and portray the Islamic Republic as an anti-imperialist champion. Conveniently, they don’t say anything about the massacre of the Iranian left in 1988, where thousands were killed and dumped into mass graves, or about how the perpetrators of that crime are in Ahmadinejad’s government now. To liberals and intellectuals they show the Islamic Republic as a young democratic state which is under threat. They say that if only this threat was removed the Islamic Republic would be a flourishing liberal democracy. There are many more examples. These lobbyists even include university lecturers and Western politicians.
Dan, even in your very own FrontPage Magazine someone interviewed Roozbeh Farahanipour. Everyone who is active on Iran issues knows this guy is an Islamic Republic collaborator whose sole purpose is to discredit real Iranian activists. He was detained for only six days in Iran and was released when he signed an agreement agreeing to co-operate with the Islamic Republic. He talks about the MPG Party. There is no such thing in Iran! To be considered a party shouldn’t you have at least five members? You will struggle to show me 5 MPG members. Can anyone name one MPG action anywhere in Iran or outside of Iran since 1999? The guy is a cheat, a liar, and a fraud and even the respectable FrontPage Magazine, which the real Iranian pro-democracy activists respect very much, was duped and ended up portraying him as a distinguished pro-democracy activist.
Or take the phenomenon of Hakha. The scammer suddenly managed to get so much airtime from God knows where. He appeared endlessly in the media promising to free Iran on a certain date at a certain hour! He became such a subject of ridicule and the mullahs were laughing the whole time. They were telling the Iranian people “You don’t want us? These are the people who are waiting to take over form us! You want these idiots?” Who funded this fraudster? I am sure the Islamic Republic had something to do with it.
Before we can even get to taking on the Islamic Republic, we have to waste so much energy with the lobbyists, apologists, fraudsters, and fakes. But, despite all their funding and our limited resources, we will be successful in the long run because it is easier to defend the truth than it is to defend a lie.
Rabkin: If it came down to having to resort to military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons or Iran becoming a nuclear power, what would be your preference?
Azarmehr: First of all, let me say that I am not against military invasions for the sake of it. I believe that throughout history there have been many times when invasions have liberated people. Take the invasion of Cambodia by the Vietnamese which liberated the Cambodians from the horrors of Pol Pot’s mass murders or the allied invasion of Europe which liberated Europe from Hitler.
However, in those examples there was no other alternative. In Iran, on the other hand, there is an overwhelming desire for change. Every day there are protests of some sorts that you just don’t hear about. The last nine years have been wasted in not recognizing the potential in this. Even if we come to the conclusion that there is no other alternative, which I do not subscribe to, what will happen after an invasion? In the absence of an organized credible alternative to the mullahs, who will run Iran? There will be chaos and anarchy.
I believe there is still time to utilize the overwhelming desire of the Iranian people for change. We must channel this dissent in a proper and organized way. If that happens, it will set an example for the rest of the region because peace and prosperity in Iran will bring peace and prosperity to the entire Middle East.
At the same time, more targeted sanctions can weaken the regime and crack its image of invincibility amongst the Iranian people. Once the Islamic Republic’s image of invincibility is cracked the protests will gain their critical mass. With that, an alternative will appear and that will be the end of the Islamic Republic.
Rabkin: A lot of pundits in the West claim that Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of pride for the Iranian people and that an attack against such a popular institution would backfire, do you agree?
Azarmehr: This notion of Iran’s nuclear program being a matter of pride for Iranians is a myth created by non-sense journalists and think tanks.
In the absence of free opinion polls, how do they make such observations? They go to Iran and speak to someone on the street or during an official state demonstration. Of course, they don’t realize that telling the truth in dictatorships has consequences, so they think some poor guy will tell them the heartfelt truth in front of cameras and people he has never seen before. And with that, these anecdotes turn into hard facts thanks to these “pundits” and their ignorance.
Yet, they miss out on the slogans that Iranian youth were shouting during the Iranian Fire Festival which were mocking the regime’s nuclear energy slogans. Or the hundreds of placards we see held at protests in Iran which demand much more basic rights as the real “obvious rights” - a reference to the regime’s slogan of “nuclear energy is our obvious right.”
I have to borrow from (Iranian pro-democracy and student leader) Amir A. Fakhravar’s speech at DePaul University in Chicago regarding a military attack on Iran’s infrastructure. The worst option is an attack on Iran’s infrastructure with the clerics remaining in power. It will demoralize the population and the regime will justify all of its shortcomings with the military attack. In fact, I believe sections of the Islamic Republic’s government are looking forward to this option. It’s the only way for them to get out of their current difficulties in meeting the people’s growing demands.
Rabkin: If Iran manages to acquire nuclear weapons what will be the consequences?
Azarmehr: The consequences will be enormous risks and dangers to the world if such an unaccountable government obtains these weapons, especially considering the fact that this unaccountable state has a messianic mission for global domination. The export of the Islamic Revolution is a fundamental part of the Islamic Republic’s constitution. If they get nuclear weapons, it will become a reality.
Rabkin: For the sake of humanity, let’s hope something will be done to prevent that from happening. Potkin, I want to thank you again for joining me.
Azarmehr: It was my pleasure Dan.

Iran's Lobby in the U.S.
May 08, 2008 - FrontPageMagazine.com - Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview's guest today is Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian human rights activist and political scholar. Daioleslam was born in Tehran in 1957. After finishing his primary and high school in Tehran, he entered the Polytechnic University of Tehran in 1974. In the years after the 1979 Iranian Islamist Revolution in Iran, he became a student movement leader standing up against Khomeini's repression and mass executions. He eventually left the country and settled in France. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Daioleslam was active with Iranian secular movements, human rights activities and the defense of Iranian political prisoners.In 2001, Daioleslam moved to the United States and concentrated on political research. Since 2005, he has been collaborating with two independent Iranian journalists inside Iran focusing on the Iranian Regime's lobby in the U.S.

His reports have been largely published by major Farsi websites and several US journals. Daioleslam has frequently appeared as an expert guest on the Voice of America-TV as well as on other outlets of Persian media.FP: Hassan Daioleslam, welcome to Frontpage Interview.Daioleslam: Thank you for inviting me. It is my pleasure to share my views with your readers.FP: For more than a year now you have been active in the media, including in the Voice of America, on the issue of the Iranian regime’s expanding influence and lobby efforts in the West -- and in particular in the United States. Before we get into the details of the what, who and how, can you tell us why this issue is important?Daioleslam: The policy of United States on Iran over the past decade has been full of confusion and shortsightedness. This is not accidental. A key factor in shaping this policy has been a disinformation campaign waged by pro-Iranian circles. The price of this confusion has been heavy and has included the lives of Americans, billions of dollars of tax payers' money, and even worse, the looming threat of Tehran's mullahs as a nuclear superpower dominant in the region. We must understand this web of the Iranian influence in the US. It is a matter of national security.FP: Who is involved?Daioleslam: There are two distinct but related groups of people and organizations that are active in manipulating US policy toward Iran. The first is what I call the "Iranian regime's lobby" in the U.S. They are present in US media, think-tanks and a potpourri of various organizations. Their lobby activities are also focused on the US Congress. These groups have various degrees of connections to Tehran.The second group operates in conjunction with US business interests, and in particular with the oil industry. The forces involved with these interests aim at the Iranian market and they fear that firm and decisive policies toward the clerical rule would harm their global interests. For these special interests, financial benefits have priority over U.S. national interests.FP: Let’s start with the first group. Tell us about the “Iranian Lobby” in the U.S.Daioleslam: Sadegh Kharazzi, the former Iranian deputy foreign minister (1997-2003) who lived in the U.S. between 1989 till 1996, is the architect of this lobby. In a very interesting interview with Shargh newspaper on May 28, 2006, he talked about the Iranian regime's means of countering U.S. policies and also ways to counter the Israeli lobby in the US. He openly admitted that there is an Iranian lobby in the U.S. He also emphasized that this lobby should remain non-governmental. "The government should support it, promote it and then can rely on it." Kharazzi said.FP: Wait a second, these aren’t actual registered lobbyists in Washington?Daioleslam: It is unlawful for the Iranian regime to lobby the U.S. Congress. There are no registered lobbyists pursuing the Iranian cause in Washington. However, as Kharazzi said, there is an unofficial Iranian lobby in the U.S. All one has to do is to compare the need or wishes of the Iranian Regime at any given time and the activities of these groups. The picture will become crystal clear.FP: Who exactly is involved in this lobby?Daioleslam: The answer can be found in the Iranian regime's own reactions. In April 2007, I published my report about the "Iran's oil Mafia, penetrating US congress". In that article which was published by FrontPage, I talked about the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) founded by Trita Parsi-- who was an advisor to the convicted Congressman Bob Ney.Immediately after the article was published, in a very organized manner, the Iranian governmental newspapers came to NIAC's rescue and wrote that "the Neocons and the Israeli lobby are attacking the Iranian lobby". As you can see, they (the Iranian official media) call the NIAC an Iranian lobby. (See for example, Ghods Daily, April 21, 2007)On December 28, 2006 the governmental newspaper Aftab in Iran published an interview with Trita Parsi. In his introduction, the editor underlined the role of Iranian American lobby on the behalf of the Iranian regime and described it as the Mullahs' "unofficial diplomacy."FP: You mentioned NIAC is at the top of the list of the Iranian Lobby in the U.S. What do you know of their ties with Tehran?Daioleslam: In 1999, Trita Parsi who was living in Sweden, together with Siamak Namazi from Tehran, elaborated a seminal paper and discussed the way to create an "Iranian American lobby in U.S." They wrote: "This lobby is needed in order to create a balance between the competing Middle Eastern lobbies. Without it, Iran-bashing may become popular in Congress again."They went into details about the functioning of the AIPAC (the Israeli lobby) and argued that the Iranian lobby should follow the same path.FP: Who is Siamak Namazi?Daioleslam: He has been Parsi's friend and partner for over a decade. To understand the relation between NIAC and the Iranian regime, we should first understand Namazi's position in Iran.Namazi's family, together with Bijan Khajehpour and Albrecht Frischenschlager, control the Atieh Bahar firm in Tehran. This web of companies is in direct partnership with the Iranian regime. Khajehpour 's Qheshm Energy is a joint venture with the Qhesh authorities (Government). Frischenschlager is in partnership with 3 free zone authorities. He is also partner with Hatami Yazd, a famous figure in the Iranian oil Mafia and the former head of three important Iranian Banks, all under US sanctions. Babak Namazi co-wrote the foreign investment law for the government. Atieh and Iranian oil ministry co-organize oil related events.For example, two of Atieh’s prominent clients, French Total Oil Company and the Norwegian Statoil, had to pay tens of millions of dollars in bribes, to penetrate the Iranian market.FP: Do Parsi-Namazi relations go beyond the 1999 paper?Daioleslam: Yes. To materialize the "Iranian American Lobby," a series of conferences were held to attract naïve young Iranians. In these "Diaspora" conferences, Babak Namazi and Parsi along with others were active participants. One of the conferences was held on Jan. 26, 2006 in Tehran and Namazi's father, Bagher was the host. Parsi and Namazi ties go far beyond the roadmap for a lobby.FP: The NIAC, of course, claims that their only goal is to empower Iranian Americans to participate in civic life - regardless of what their political believes are.Daioleslam: To examine their claim, it suffices to examine their web site. Almost all of what they have been doing for years has been focused on U.S. policy toward the Iranian regime. In his last article, Parsi could not be more clear about what he is promoting. He advised the U.S. government to share the Middle East with Iran.He wrote, "Can the US and Iran share the Middle East. . . .Current facts on the ground are quite different -- Iran's regional influence is unquestionable and rolling Iran back out of Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps even Gaza may no longer be realistic. . . . Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region."It is well known that the large majority of the Iranians in the U.S. despise the current regime in Iran and their barbaric treatment of the Iranian people. A fair question is: when did NIAC ever empower their voice? Iranian Americans are concerned about the execution of children, mass executions, stoning to death, barbaric suppression of university students, infiltration of Iranian Islamic fundamentalism in the region, the Mullahs’ dangerous nuclear games -- which have the promise of destroying the country, blatant theft of the country’s wealth by the elite mullahs and their oil and financial mafia, and many similarly atrocious issues. When did NIAC ever voice these concerns?Instead a cursory examination of NIAC’s publications and activities all point towards paling these issues. The Iranian community in the US is an educated and affluent one. The major handicap they are suffering from is the negative image of the Clerical rulers in Tehran.The first step to render the Iranian prestige to its people, at least in the U.S., is voicing the fact that this regime does not represent the Iranian nation. NIAC does the opposite. In fact they have bent backward to present data that the Iranian people support these barbaric rulers. This is not empowering the Iranian Americans. It is humiliating them.FP: What other organizations are involved in the Iranian Lobby?Daioleslam: In 2006, when Ahmadinejad started a confrontational policy over Iran’s nuclear program, a new lobbying group was launched in Europe and the US. Campaign against Sanction and Military intervention in Iran (CASMII) was founded by Abbas Edalat, a computer professor connected to the inner circle of the Iranian regime. Half of CASMII's founding board members came from Trita Parsi's circle and NIAC. The other half came from the so-called Iranian left with anti-Imperialist tendencies who interpreted Ahmadinejad’s howls as progressive.FP: What does CASMII do?Daioleslam: Again, a simple look at their web site is illustrative of their function: pure defense of the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions.FP: You are indicating that the Iranian regime has been able to make connections to the American Left. Can you elaborate on that please?Daioleslam: CASMII is the Iranian connection to the American left. Through CASMII, segments of the Left and the anti-war movement in the United States have channeled their critique of the war and the current US administration to support the most radical elements of the Iranian regime. These American personalities and groups have clearly crossed the line and have become ardent advocates of one of the most notorious dictatorships of the modern history, with no regards for the Iranian people, the prime victims of these dictators.FP: Do you have specific examples?Daioleslam: CASMII, among other PR activities, regularly organizes trips for such groups in the U.S. to visit Iran. Upon their return, CASMII arranges orchestrated PR charades of the kind we often see from totalitarian regimes. Their trip diaries are both laughable and disgraceful. They remind us of the cold war era visits to the Soviet Union. The returned visitors praised Stalin and the joyful Gulags.Last year, when the mullahs’ wave of public mass hangings was condemned by the international community, Phil Wilayto, who led the latest “People's Peace Delegation to Iran” responded to “these fallacious allegations against the Iranian regime”:“Yes, Iran has the death penalty, and uses it. But not nearly so often as the United States government. . . .Neither did we see any evidence of deep, mass anger with the Iranian government. We talked with Iranians from a wide range of occupations and social classes. People grumble about their economic situation, but most seem to blame the U.S.-imposed sanctions."FP: You mentioned that the Iranian regime is also present in the American think tanks and the academic centers. Could you elaborate on that please?Daioleslam: It seems that the American Think Tanks and academic circles provide a unique opportunity for Iranian officials to be recycled as scholars. It is difficult to believe that only in Boston, three of Iranian former deputy foreign ministers have been recruited by the most prestigious universities: M. J. Mahallati, Farhad Atai, both academicians as well as board member of ILEX foundation in Boston. Then, there is the head of the Iranian lobby in US, Abbas Maleki, deputy foreign minister for 8 years who was also an advisor to the Supreme Leader till he started his U.S. career in Harvard.FP: How could the U.S. permit such high ranking Iranian officials to operate here?Daioleslam: This is the question that the Iranian community is legitimately asking. More amazingly, Maleki does not hide his intentions. In his recent visit to Tehran, he gave several speeches and outlined the way of countering the US hegemony. In the clearest ways, he talked about the campaign of misinformation that seeks to influence American public opinion.FP: You also talked about some American interest groups that help the Iranian regime. Who are these groups?Daioleslam: We should distinguish between those who genuinely believe in a friendship with the Iranian regime (although naively so) and those who intentionally and systematically manipulate U.S. public opinion and the decision making system. Their goal is that no harsh policy ever be adopted against the Iranian regime. As I mentioned earlier, the oil industry is prominently placed within this group.Through media and think tanks, they strive to pale the Iranian regime’s atrocities inside and outside Iran and demonize their critics. These proponents of Tehran’s ayatollahs over the last decade have confused and mislead the US policy makers and have made it difficult to oppose the Clerical rulers.FP: Can you give us examples of how they misrepresent and mislead as you suggest?Daioleslam: Note that their goals are to hide the Iranian regime's weaknesses, to misrepresent the Mullahs' motives and to intentionally ignore the Iranian threat to world security and to U.S. national interests.FP: Concrete examples?Daioleslam: This pro-Tehran campaign was mainly launched during Mohammad Khatami's presidency. Their first goal was to hide Khatami's irrelevance and lack of power, and to represent the “reform government” as an irreversible trend which the U.S. should accommodate and get along with. Let me quote some of these “Iran experts”:Robin Wright from Washington Post wrote: “The (2000 parliamentary) election may also have marked the onset of recovery — a revolution’s third and final phase.” (Wright, R., The Last Great Revolution. The Journal of the International Institute)She seemed so excited about the Iranian positive impact that she wrote in Foreign Affaires of Jan, 2000:“Like the world around it, Iran is still undergoing a profound transformation. . . .Gradually, the government of God is being forced to cede to secular statecraft -- and to empower Iranians. In the process, Iran has begun contributing to the spread of public empowerment around the world.”Suzanne Maloney wrote in the Middle East Policy Journal of June 2000:"Nonetheless, the February elections provide powerful evidence that the system is evolving in an irreversibly democratic fashion.”Ray Takeyh was even more affirmative, He wrote in Middle East Policy Journal of November 2000:“The next institution that is likely to fall in the hands of the reformers is the judiciary. . . .The anticipated reform of the court system will further diminish the conservatives' power base…In the coming decade it is likely that the position of the leader will undergo transformations as its absolutism is widely challenged within both clerical and secular circles.”FP: What happened when it became apparent that Khatami was failing? How did these Iran experts respond?Daioleslam: Here we see the most extraordinary example of how these people mislead and manipulate the facts. In July 2004, the Council on Foreign Relations released its Task Force Report on Iran. Suzanne Maloney directed the project. This report urged rapprochement with the Iranian regime, basically the same policy that many such reports had already proposed for the previous seven years. What made this CFR report unique was its analysis of the Iranian power structure after the defeat of reformers in two consecutive elections in 2003 and 2004. In fact, the CFR report was released at a time when many Iranian analysts qualified as a turning point in the life of the Islamic Republic.While a large number of Iranian analysts, political scholars and intellectuals were warning the Iranians and the international community about the rise of a new radical faction representing the Revolutionary Guards, the CFR task force report not only did not mention anything about this apparent element, it surprisingly discovered an “ascending pragmatic faction” in Iran:“Iran is experiencing a gradual process of internal change that will slowly but surely produce a government more responsive toward its citizens’ wishes and more responsible in its approach to the international community.” (page13) “. . . .the pragmatists who appear to be ascendant in Tehran.” (page19)FP: It is interesting to see how these intellectuals reacted to Ahmadinejad's ascendance.Daioleslam: His ascendance started in 2003 when he became mayor of Tehran. From 2003 till 2005, a number of "Iran experts" were busy discovering imaginary pragmatic factions in Iran, ready to accommodate the international exigencies. Ray Takeyh, CFR's senior Iran expert (Suzanne Maloney's husband) wrote in 2004:“The reality is that the postwar situation in Iraq and the massive projection of U.S. power along Iran’s [border] have strengthened the position of a cadre of pragmatic conservatives seeking practical solutions to Iran’s increasingly dire predicaments. Under the banner of “new thinking,” this group seeks to restructure Iran’s domestic priorities and international relations.” (MPJ, November 2000)Then, in 2005, Ahmadinejad took the command and the Pragmatic mirage evaporated. Ray Takeyh and friends started a new campaign of misinformation. First they tried to downplay the Iranian regime's threat. Takeyh wrote:"Despite the chorus of concern, Iran's new president has demonstrated no interest in substantially altering the contours of Iran's international policy - nor has the country's ultimate authority, the Supreme Leader. . . .But the notion that Iran's foreign policy is entering a new radical state is yet another misreading of the Islamic Republic and its many paradoxes.” (CSM, Sep. 29, 2005)When the absurdity of this argument became evident, the "Iran experts" tried to promote new pragmatic leaders in Iran who seemingly control the situation. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 19, 2006, Takeyh said:“Realists: President Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical fulminations and presence on the international stage should not obscure the fact that he is not in complete command of Iran’s foreign relations. One of the most important actors in Iran today is the powerful Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani. As the leader of a new generation of realists that evolved in the intelligence community in the 1990s, this cohort’s has predominant influence over the direction of Iran’s international relations. Through their presence in key institutions, links with traditional clerical community and intimate ties to the Supreme Leader, the realists chart the course of Iran’s foreign policy".FP: How does this group react to the Iranian nuclear program?Daioleslam: Inside Iran, the government imposed a strict censorship and started a series of state organized rallies by the Bassijis (militias) in support of the nuclear program. Then, the pro-Iranian circles in the U.S. started to argue that the Iranian program is supported by the vast majority of Iranian people.Robin Wright was again the leader of this campaign. On Nov. 14, 2004 she wrote in the Washington Post:"Iranians are deeply divided on politics, the economy, the role of religion in government and a dress code for women. But reformers and conservatives, urban and rural, old and young, rich and poor, and men and women generally agree on one thing: Iran needs nuclear energy, and despite its oil and gas riches, the world should not deprive it of the technology, even though it could also be used to develop weapons."This article is a pure example of fabrication and misleading. Wright's article was immediately published by Iranian governmental newspapers. Who did tell Wright about the Iranian support and unity? She cited Abbas Maleki, the head of Caspian research institute in Tehran. But, Maleki was in fact the former deputy foreign minister and actual advisor to the Supreme Leader. Wright did not find necessary to tell this part of the story.FP: How did the Iranian people react to the regime's nuclear program and how was it echoed in U.S. media?Daioleslam: When the Iranian file was referred to the UN Security Council and sanctions were imposed, voices were raised to brave the regime's censorship and oppose the nuclear program. The very same journalists or experts, who were portraying the Bassiji demonstrations as a sign of popular support for the Ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions, totally ignored the true popular opposition to the regime's program. Thousands of intellectuals, student leaders, journalists and religious dignitaries have opposed the nuclear program but we find no trace of them in the U.S. media.FP: Concluding thoughts?Daioleslam: Everyone, including Iranian mullahs, have the right to voice their opinion and strive to convince others. By no means have I intended to limit, in anyways, the right of any organization or individual. However I strongly believe that irreparable harm results from apolitically motivated pursuits under the disguise of “academic pursuit,” “scholarly activities,” or, even worse “empowering populations.” It is this demagogy that I am fighting against. This creates harmful confusion. As I stated at the beginning of this interview, the price for this confusion is extremely high. Too high to be ignored.FP: Hassan Daioleslam, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.Daioleslam: Thank you for inviting me and it was a great pleasure for me.