More »

Examination of NIAC’s internal documents released during a defamation lawsuit suggests that this organization has violated the rules governing Congressional funds.

Source: www.iranianlobby.com
April 30, 2010

To see the entire report in pdf Format, click here Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Background: NIAC’s Projects funded by NED and Eurasia 5

Part One: Financial Fraud 6

A: not returning the unused fund 6

B: NIAC viewed the NED fund as a good source of income 8

C: NED funds were spent for NIAC’s own activities not related to NGO projects. 9

Part 2: Filing False Reports and misleading NED officials 14

Part 3: NIAC’s coordination with the Iranian government 20

A: Background on NIAC’s partner in Iran: Hamyaran and Namazi 21

B: Collaboration between NIAC and Hamyaran 23

C: NIAC’s other partner in Tehran was the “Science and Arts Foundation” (SAF), an organization led by a governmental official“26

D: Namazi helped NIAC’s lobby to end the Democracy Fund 26

Part 4: Daioelslam’s article in 2008 about NIAC’s fraud, Senate inquiry and NED’s response 28

Executive Summary

National Iranian American Council arranged to receive congressional appropriated funds from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Eurasia Foundation to outreach and establish communication with the Iranian NGOs and advise them on capacity building and to cultivate a relationship between Iranian NGOs and international donors. .

NIAC received its first grant in 2002 and the last grant ended in late 2007 reaching more than $200.000 of Congressional funds. NIAC was granted the funds to help the Iranian NGOs:

• To design and implement a two-day media training workshop in Iran for forty staff members from five civic groups.

• To launch a Farsi website “to advise local groups on capacity building and to cultivate relationships between Iranian NGOs and international donors.”

• To post a Farsi E-book on this website.

• Maintain the contact with the Iranian NGOs

Following a defamation lawsuit brought in 2008 some of the internal documents related to these projects have become available. Examination of official documents and NIAC’s internal memos, including email correspondence and grant programmatic and financial reports suggests that NIAC lied to NED about its accomplishments and used federal funds for non-grant related activities, thus violating many of the rules governing the use Congressional funds. As a non-profit tax exempt organization, NIAC’s program related activities and expenditures during a period of 2002-2007 deserve a full congressional investigation.

According to the government website http://www.usaspending.gov/, using federal grants for unjust enrichment, personal use, or other than their intended purpose is a form of theft that is subject to potential criminal and civil prosecution under federal law. The following are common indicators used to abuse and defraud federal funds:

1. Failure to perform the work specified in the grant award;

2. Failure to establish necessary fiscal controls on grant money;

3. Reporting false results on the work specified in the grant award;

4. Theft of grant money, or of property purchased with grant money;

5. Using grant money for any purpose other than that specified in the grant award.

NIAC internal documents indicate that it failed in almost all of the above mentioned indicators.

1. Financial fraud: NIAC’s internal documents strongly suggest a pattern of abuse, deception and attempt to defraud the Congressional funds. Financial records suggest that NIAC charged NED for unjustified expenses, false pretexts and non-existent items. The Congressional funds were spent for NIAC’s own activities that were not related to those stated in the grant. The review of the discovery documents suggests that NIAC’s main concern was to get the funds from NED and EF at any price and under any pretext. For them, the Congressional fund was “a good source of income for them.” While M. Mansouri who carried out the entire projects lived and worked full-time in California, (for another organization) NIAC charged NED for its Washington DC office rent. NIAC allowed Mansouri to keep the computer purchased with Congressional funds after the grant had ended. In another instance, NIAC used NED funds to purchase and send flowers for 12 persons who were among the host committee of NIAC fund raising committee, advertised as “anti-war” event. This report provides a detailed account of grant implementation, management and financial irregularities.

2. Reporting false results on the work specified in the grant award: NIAC intentionally misled NED about the project, grant activities and its impact. NIAC filed inaccurate reports to NED regarding projects success and outreach to the Iranian NGO’s. NIAC decided to hide the truth from NED officials. NIAC on several occasions modified negative reports from the field and presented dynamic and positive picture of its unsatisfactory performance.

3. Failure to perform the work specified in the grant award: All of the funded projects were indeed trivial activities with no impact on Iranian NGOs. NIAC intentionally misled the NED about the projects and its impact.

4. Collaboration with the Iranian regime: NIAC’s projects were approved and welcomed by the Iranian regime. For one project, the Iranian foreign ministry guided NIAC how to proceed and which partner it should choose.

• NIAC’s main partner in Iran was a false flag NGO created by the Iranian regime: NIAC partner was Hamyaran, a quasi-governmental organization created, managed and controlled by the Iranian regime.

• NIAC Lobbied the Congress to cut off the funds for independent Iranian NGOs: While receiving NED and Eurasia Funds, NIAC and Trita Parsi lobbied the congress to stop appropriating other funds meant for dissident democratic movements and NGOs in Iran through non-NIAC channels. NIAC’s lobby to cut these funds was directly guided by Hamyaran, its partner in Tehran with clear connection to the Iranian regime.

Note: I wrote this report after a meticulous review of NIAC’s documents. This report reflects my belief and my own understanding that NIAC has violated the Congressional rules governing NED projects. I feel obliged to share my concerns with others. I welcome any suggestion and correction.

Background: NIAC’s Projects funded by NED and Eurasia

In 2002, NIAC received a $25,000 grant to organize a 2 day workshop for the Iranian NGOs in Tehran. The workshop took place in 2004.

In 2005, NIAC received its second grant ($64,000) from NED “to develop and launch a website, Online NGO Resource Center, to strengthen organizational capacity of local groups in Iran and foster cooperation between Iranian NGOs, international NGOs and foreign funding institutions.” The project started in April 2005.

A year later, another $107,000 was granted to NIAC to continue the outreach to the Iranian NGOs through the Farsi website and also organize a 12 day workshop for 7 Iranian NGOs in Turkey.

At the same time, NIAC received another $71.500 from Eurasia Foundation in 2006 for the Farsi website. http://www.eurasia.org/programs/grantsearch.aspx?txtKeyword=niac

Part of the NED project (the workshop in Turkey) was cancelled and $20,000 of funds was returned to NED. Overall, more than $200,000 was paid to NIAC for the Farsi website and its outreach to the Iranian NGOs.

In late 2007, NIAC asked for additional fund for the extension of its project but NED denied their demand.

The 2002 grant was carried out in 2004. NIAC held a two days workshop in Tehran. The entire 2005-2007 projects were carried out by one single man, Mohammad Mansouri who was hired by NIAC. He continued to reside in CA and the majority of the time he worked for another organization (The HAND Foundation). He travelled one single time to Iran. The only deliverable ($220.000 of Congressional money) of his performance was the launch of a Farsi website over a short period of time and the translation of an English book into Farsi which was gradually posted on this website. Trita Parsi received Mansouri’s quarterly reports and altered them to paint a rosier performance picture, thus reporting false results on the work specified in the grant. For his reports, Parsi was paid monthly consulting fees.

Part One: Financial Fraud

The review of Trita Parsi and Mansouri’s communications shows that the 2005-2007 projects funded by NED and Eurasia foundation were limited to the activities of one single person, Mohammad Mansouri who was hired by NIAC as NGO consultant or project manager. He reported his activities to Trita Parsi and Parsi reported back to NED and EF.

The review of the discovery documents suggests that Parsi and Mansouri’s main concern was to get the funds from NED and EF at any price and under any pretext. For them, the Congressional fund was “a good source of income for them.”

Not only they tried to get money under false pretexts, they also intended to not return the unused funds. These private communications suggest a pattern of deception and attempt to defraud the Congressional funds.

Here are some of Mansouri and Trita Parsi’s communications:

A: not returning the unused fund

• Discovery Document: Mansouri’s email Don’t return the unused funds back to NED, 5.9.2006)

“I will gather my receipts of the last 8 months and send it over soon. There are something like $350 for the cell phone, less than $100 for calling Tehran and maybe another $250 for expenses such as internet connection, at the most. You have to find other ways to take care of the rest of it. It won’t be a good idea to pay some money back to NED from the last year’s budget.”

• Discovery Document: NIAC’s book keeper advised NIAC how to keep the unused fund and not return it to NED: (Mansouri’s email:5.9.2006)

“The last thing that I can find is a portion of a collective bill (at my new place) that includes the Internet fee as well. I will do my best to collect those things tonight and send it over in another separate email either later tonight or tomorrow morning. However it only covers less than 20% of what is left.

Nahzi had some ideas about the rest of it as well. She said that we can find relevant costs, get the money out and then donate it to NIAC again, which is much more better than let it go back to NED. You can give her a call and she will explain what she means.”

• Discovery Document: Mansouri’s deposition

Use it or loose it

Q. And you tell him, “I will gather my receipts of the last eight months and send it over soon. There are something like $350 for the cell phone, less than $100 for calling Tehran, and maybe another 250 for expenses such as Internet connection at the most. You have to find other ways to take care of the rest of it. It won’t be a good idea to pay back some money from NED from last year’s budget.” Did I read that correctly?

Mansouri: Yes, sir.

Q. And those are words that you said to Trita Parsi in May 2006?

Mansouri: That is correct.

Q. Which would suggest that you hadn’t sent him any receipts for reimbursement in the prior eight months to this e-mail?

Mansouri: Apparently, I had forgotten to. That is what it says.

Q. Why would you say it won’t be a good idea to pay some money from the NED from last year’s budget?

Mansouri: If you have ever been working on a grant, you would know that it is not a good idea to let the budget go back. That is a common –

Q. Use it or lose it, right?

Mansouri: That is the meaning of the budget.

B: NIAC viewed the NED fund as a good source of income

Discovery Document: Mansouri’s email “We nailed down NED, 3.17.2006

“Wow!

I got your message. I’m happy to hear that we nailed down NED and hope to get the other 70K so that we can run this for a while.”

————————————————————————————————

• Mansouri to Parsi: Go for 12k increments. It’s psychologically more understandable like 1000 per month

Discovery Document: Email exchange between Parsi and Mansouri

Trita Parsi:

“Mohammad jon, let’s talk per phone tomorrow. Unfortunately, as I explained earlier, your salary is 60 – 72 is the budget, i.e. that includes taxes as well as benefits. Perhaps we should change the EF budget asap before they show the board?

Mansouri:

“You are right, maybe we should give EF a try. Again my suggestion is go for 12k increments. It’s psychologically more understandable like 1000 per month. This usually works better if we approach people (individual donors). It would be very good if we raise it up to 96K. However, do not worry yourself at all. We do our best and see what might come out of it. Even if nothing works out, there will be always other sources to tap and other things to do.”

————————————————————————————————

• Find another pretext to ask for money:

Mansouri and Parsi try to charge NED for a training course for Mansouri. They fear that such item in the spending report could seem strange and unjustified to NED. Mansouri suggests that they get this money under another item.

Discovery Document: Mansouri’s email “Ask for money under different description, 1.12.2006

Parsi:

“How much would a course there cost? I am wondering if we could get it, into the budget. It might look strange. but do look into it.”

Mansouri:

“I totally agree with you; it looks strange to request such a thing. However, you might be able to add a reasonable amount of money by the title of “capacity building” or alike and increase the total amount of the grant. The more total among is, the more credit goes to NIAC and all of us. This will lead us to even a better situation in the future.”

————————————————————————————————

C: NED funds were spent for NIAC’s other activities not related to NGO projects.

Mansouri, the man who carried out the entire project lived and worked in California but NIAC charged the NED for its office rent in Washington, postage, office supply ….

Discovery Document: Mansouri’s deposition:

Q. To be clear, at any point in time for either of the two projects, did you have office space at NIAC’s offices?

A: Not at all. I have visited them during those two last years that I worked because I was coming for meetings. We had a short meeting in the office and going to, you know, our meeting to somewhere else, but I never ever had a place in their office.

Q. If you could look on Page 3 under “Postage and Delivery,” there are a lot of entries there in nice round even numbers for postage meter to 1214, postage meter to 119 –

A. Yes.

Q. — $100, $100, postage meter to 26, that is in 2006 for $450. *****

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you this: Were you mailing anything to anybody in Iran?

A. No.

Q. Was NIAC mailing anything to anyone in Iran for this project?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. The payments are in nice round even numbers, which is kind of unusual for postage, and they are payable to NIAC. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. My question for you is: Do you have any idea what NIAC was mailing and charging to the NED account in 2006?

A. Not at all.

While Mansouri, the NGO manager who carried out the entire project lived and worked in CA, NIAC used the NED money for its office expenses in Washington:

Discovery Document: Mansouri resided in CA Mansouri’s email , 8.27.2005

“Trita jaan,

I am not planning to come back to Washington DCany timesoon. But there is nothing to be worried about. I can conduct my responsibilities from anywhere as long as I have access to the internet and telephone! And if for any reason, it was absolutely necessary for me to be in DC or NY or anywhere else, I can arrange to be there as long as I have been given ample notice.”

Discovery Document: Mansouri worked for another organization in CA Mansouri’s email

“From: Mohammad Mansouri [mailto:mmansouri@niacouncil.org]

Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:39 PM

To: Trita Parsi

Subject: RE: salaam

Well, I can commit myself to work between 35 to 40 hours per week on this project if it pays me around the same $5000 we planned for. Right now, I work 35 hours per week for the HAND. I will either drop it all together or reduce it to something like 15 hours per week, which makes it possible to handle for me (I mean working like 50 to 60 hours per week). Also, it is only an average I imagine for myself. In fact, I have to travel twice for out new project and each one of them is going to take about 1 month. Therefore, I really don’t think that Noosheen accepts the way I want to continue with her; we have to wait and see what her reaction will be.”

NIAC used NED fund for its Washington office rent

Discovery Document: Trita parsi’s email to NIAC board members , 11.30.2005)

“A proposal is also being written to renew our NED grant. They gave us 64k last year, and we hope to get more this year. This money has essentially covered our office expenses this year, and proved to be crucial for our survival.”

Overall, NIAC charged NED $31500 for its Washington DC office rent:

Discovery Document “Report_from_N.I.A.C..pdf2”

————————————————————————————————

• Mansouri and Parsi looked at the NED fund as a good source of income

Discovery Document: Mansouri’s email: Good source of income for all of us, 7.4.2007 – 1.17

“Regarding NED, I think we should apply for another grant. Something different than EF but somehow related. It can be a source of income for NIAC and maybe all of us.”

————————————————————————————————

• Buying flower with NED money for a NIAC anti-war fundraising

NIAC’s NED related projects were officially terminated in September 2007. However, NIAC’s internal document show that NED’s remaining money was spent as far as April 2008, for items totally unrelated to NGO projects.

For example, $1230 was spent to buy flowers for a NIAC fundraising event in California. The documents show that NIAC used the money fron NED account to send flowers to a dozen of persons who were among the host committee of a NIAC fundraising, advertised as “anti war” event. The money raised during this event helped NIAC’s lobby activity in the Congres. The event was unrelated to NED projects and was held in 2008, well after the termination of NED projects.

• Purchase of flowers for 12 persons. We find the names of persons who received flowers

Discovery Document: “Report_from_N.I.A.C. 17”

• Here is the NIAC fundraising. We find the same names listed as the host committee members

Discovery Document, NIAC fundraising in CA

Part 2: Filing False Reports and misleading NED officials

Reporting false results on the work specified in the grant award: NIAC misled NED officials about its outreach to the Iranian NGOs

NIAC intentionally misled NED about the project, grant activities and its impact. NIAC filed inaccurate reports to NED regarding projects success and outreach to the Iranian NGO’s. NIAC decided to hide the truth from NED officials. NIAC on several occasions modified negative reports from the field and presented dynamic and positive picture of its unsatisfactory performance.

The 2005-2007 projects were initially approved to establish communication with the Iranian NGOs:

Discovery Document: “NED Version – National Iranian American Council – FINISHED

“The main purpose of the website is to advise local groups on capacity building and to cultivate relationships between Iranian NGOs and international donors. To meet this end, the resource expert will correspond by phone and by e-mail with local groups on capacity building, project development and proposal writing issues. NIAC will also circulate an electronic Persian-language monthly newsletter to local groups on resource material updates, new funding opportunities and upcoming training activities… NIAC will also hire a Persian-English speaking resource expert to advise local groups on project development, proposal writing and foreign donor relations.”

Regarding project’s success and the outreach to the Iranian NGOs, there is a sharp contrast between the positive reports submitted by Trita Parsi to NED from one hand and the content of private communications between him and M. Mansouri on the other hand.

A good example is the impact of the Farsi website. NIAC projected that the Iranian NGOs will register with the website and it will create a database of these NGOs.

In reality, no NGO ever registered. NED continued to ask the name of these registered NGOs and NIAC continued to mislead the NED official.

Mansouri advised Parsi to hide the truth from NED officials.

NED offical email question: (11.18.2005)

“I would love to hear about your resource expert. Has s/he been receiving inquires from local NGOs in Iran? Is there enough demand? Do they have to call US to get his/her advise or does s/he have a local line?

Mansouri’s email responding to Parsi about list of Iranian NGOs, 11.18.2005

“If you mean the list of NGOs that have been registered with us. I believe Sean might have the complete list. I don’t know how to retrieve data about them from the site. However, I don’t suggest to give them that. First of all, there are only 30 to 40 people that most of them have not mentioned the name of the NGO they are working for.”

And finally if you would like to have the list of NGOs I sent the invitation and introduction to our site. It is attached to this email (directory 2.xls). But as far as I remember they are mostly diaspora-based NGOs that I approached so that they can spread the word and join us themselves. I got several “thank you very much”, “what a wonderful site!” “what an interesting educational center!” and so on and so forth comments from them and that was it.

Document: Parsi’s email to NED 11.18.2005

“Yes, we have received quite a few inquiries from various NGOs in Iran, but they haven’t been very keen on posting it on the forum openly though.”

Again, Parsi asks Mansouri and Mansouri responds

Email exchange between Parsi and Mansouri

Trita Parsi:

“Thanks. Don’t we have a list of NGOs in Iran that you have been in contact with?”

Mansouri:

“Well, there are not many of them. Just few of people who ever contacted me mentioned the name of a NGO. They were mostly those who wanted to establish one or didn’t want to talk about their NGOs! The only few ones who mentioned the name of their NGO, were looking for possible funding. I don’t think it is a good strategy to give out this list to NED.

NED persists and Parsi asks Mansouri again:

Document: Parsi’s email: 2.6.06

“How many NGOs have you been in contact with by now? How big is our own database?”

Document: Mansouri’s email (2.6 .2006)

“Unfortunately, not so many NGOshave been in touch with us through our website. At least, not as many as we anticipated. The total number of NGOs that either registered with us, sent emails, asked questions, and simple sent some simple notes are not more than 40 as I mentioned in my previous email.”

An example of Parsi’s false report to NED presenting a dynamic and positive relation with the Iranian NGOs:

Document:” Report to NED, 20060131”

“Third, outreach to Iranian NGOs has continued at an increasing pace. Web-advertisement has increased and we have targeted the three most popular Iranian websites – Payvand.com, Iranian.com, and Gooya.com.

Overall, as the website has become more known among Iranian NGOs, the flow of inquiries and emails has increased noticeably.

Dr. Mansouri has continued to advise and answer the questions sent to the Center by various Iranian NGOs. Though most questions pertain to funding.”

Mansouri’s deposition:

No NGO registered, None

A. We were under this belief and understanding that NGOs are going to come register with us online, and then we can have database of the active NGOs in the — you know, in Iran, but it was not the way it happened. People didn’t register. All of the e-mails that we had was personal. Nobody mentioned any name of any organization. Even those that I contacted after getting to know them with their telephone number, they were just solicitors. They thought that we might have some grants, and they didn’t understand that it was just an educational site. So that is the list that we are talking about here.

Q. I understand that. But to continue with the e-mail chain, then, he reasks you on November 19th, “Thanks. Don’t we have a list of NGOs in Iran that you have been in contact with,” correct?

A. Yes. Then my answer.

Q. And your answer is, “Sorry for the belated e-mail. I didn’t check my e-mails this weekend. Well, there are not too many of them, just few of people whoever contacted me mentioned the name of NGO.” You go on to state that they didn’t want to talk about their NGOs or were looking for funding, and you end that message by saying, “I don’t think it is a good strategy to give out this list to NED,” correct?

Q. Both NED and Dr. Parsi seemed to be asking for the names of these NGOs, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And it is you that says “I don’t think it is a good strategy to give out this list to the NED,” right?

A. This is totally a different thing. The list of NGOs here actually was public. They were supposed to go and register, and it was a Wiki based site. I don’t know if this website exists there anymore or not.

Q. Let me ask it this way: If it was public, why do you think it was not a good idea to give it to NED who is being funded by the federal government?

A. I thought that they have access to it, and there was no name there. There was no name as registered, so Trita Parsi was asking is there anyone you are in touch with, and they don’t themselves, and I am saying that there are none. There are some of them just names, personal people contacted. I had a couple of names that are not in Teheran, they were some NGOs working on helping like people with handicaps in different places, and they were actually asking for money. They thought that we have money to offer, could you help us with such and such, we are going to establish a new building or something.

Q. So what you are saying is that the information is public, but there wasn’t anything in there?

A. That is true. That is correct.

Q. Why didn’t you want to give that information to the NED again? I will repeat the question. If it was public, and the list was empty, why did you say in your e-mail to Trita Parsi that it wasn’t a good idea to tell the NED that?

A. Yes. The list was not empty because there were some communications between me and those NGO people. He was asking for particular names. I didn’t have many like first name, last name; I didn’t know who they are. I did not believe that they were right or wrong. Some of them, the questions, as I said again, it is public. Probably we can check it again. These people were asking about – like they were asking questions that I was thinking that they are even NGOs in Diaspora not in Iran.

Most were asking for money out of two or three NGOs that I know I thought it was not good to give these names. It is not like something supportive of the project.

Q. You mean it wouldn’t look good is what you were concerned about?

A. Yes.

Q. They were giving you a lot of money, and if you didn’t have many names in there, that wouldn’t look good?

A. I didn’t know how much money they were giving us, but I think I was thinking it did not look good.

Newsletter that was never made!

As part of either of NED grants NIAC has proposed to put together a newsletter to inform Iranian NGOs about grant opportunities and relevant news. But as Mansouri admits “it was not done.” However, as we shall see later, Trita falsely reported development of a Newsletter which was sent to Iranian NGO’s

Mansouri’s deposition

Q. As part of either of these NED grants, was NIAC supposed to put together a newsletter?

A. I recall that we discussed it like having a newsletter and sending news related to grants or news related to the list of our registered NGOs, but I don’t think we were able to do it. I don’t know if it was one part of the scope or not at all, but I have, again, a very vague memory of that newsletter thing.

Q: you do not recall any newsletters done as part of the project?

A. It was not done.

Q. And they had inquiries about, for example, where are the newsletters, and I believe you told us no?

A. We never went through a newsletter, and the major reason was that they were not so many NGOs registered, so it is worth it to send a newsletter.

NIAC lying to NED about the newsletter:

(email: Lie about Newsletter.htm)

Due to our technical problems with the pattern of our website which give us great capabilities to post texts on permanent basis, it was not technically easy to form a newsletter alongside the eBook. Therefore, I started forming an NGO newsletter and sending it through the ” Iran NGO News (INN)” to many Iranian NGOs. INN is a group composed of Iranian NGOs that share their news and events through this group that is moderated by the House of Culture and Sustainable Development; I came across them through my researches on and about how we can form a newsletter for center. This will be the best way to distribute our newsletter until the technical issue is resolved.

Parsi lied about newsletter:

Discovery document: Email: Parsi lies about newsletter, 2.22.2006 Report to NED

“The following deliverables are currently being developed:

? Translation of grant submission processes of foundations supportive of NGO activities in Iran.

? Monthly newsletter in Persian with updates on grant opportunities, new capacity building documents and upcoming seminars and workshops

Part 3: NIAC’s coordination with the Iranian government

• NIAC coordinated its project with Iranian government

• Iranian government asked NIAC to partner with Hamyaran

• “Hamyaran” is an umbrella organization created by the Iranian regime

• Hamyaran was led by two persons: Baquer namazi and Hossein Malekafzali

• Malekafzali was deputy minister for 18 years till 2008

• Namazi helped NIAC to create a lobby group in US to remove sanctions against Iran

• Namazi coordinated a lobby by NIAC to cut funds by US government destined to independent Iranian NGO

A: Background on Hamyaran and Baquer Namazi

• 1998: Baquer Namazi and the Iranian government created Hamyaran

In 1998 the Iranian government created a showcase of several Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) under one umbrella organization called Hamyaran. Hamyaran, was the outcome of a conference of three sectors. The first sector, according to the conference outcomes report was deputy ministers and representatives of several Iranian ministries and the Iranian parliament. The second sector was Iranian “non-governmental organizations” headed by Hossein Malek Afzali, (an influential deputy minister himself!) The third group, according to the report, was International organizations’ representatives (including United Nations). This conference of the mostly Iranian government agents decided that a new umbrella NGO will manage, coordinate and represent the showcase Iranian NGOs. This umbrella organization was called “Iran NGO Initiative” (INI) that since 2000 is called Hamyaran.

Baquer namazi and Malekafzali (deputy minister) have led this organization.

• Document: Power Point Hamyaran (prepared by Hassan Dai)

• Documents: IDS-HAMYARAN ILD” (prepared by Baguer Namazi)

• 2001: Trita Parsi coordinated with Baquer Namazi to create a lobby group in Washington

(Document. Memorandum prepared by trita Parsi)

“Conference call Parsi with Abbas Edalat, ….)

Subject: Creation of a lobby organization to remove sanctions against Iran

· March 2002, Iranian foreign ministry specified the role of Hamyaran

(Document recovered from Hamyaran’s website through “Web archive”)

Under the supervision of the government, Hamyaran was also charged with creating communication channels with the Iranians living in the US.

Hamyaran’s report of one of their meeting in the “ministry of foreign affairs”

• “Representatives offour entities reviewed the grounds for mutual cooperation in the area of strengthening the ties between the Iranian Expatriates and corresponding agencies in Iran with specific emphasis on the role of NGOs in this process.

• An overall agreement was reached on the nature of cooperation between the Government Agencies, International Agencies, and concerned Iranian NGOs both domestic and abroad.

• Workshops on specific topics related to the Iranian Expatriates and the “International Conference on the Role of Iranian Expatriates” were considered as immediate action plans.”

• November 2003: Namazi’s speech: Government encourages the expatriates to work with NGOs in Iran

Document: Namazi’s speech in Washington

Namazi: “Despite impediments, there are ample opportunities for expanding NGO activities, assisted by the progressive forces in the government and a special section in the fourth plan that encourages expansion of civil society movements. Mr. Namazi said there are many opportunities for expatriate Iranians to get involved in NGO activities both in Tehran and in the provinces. Expatriate Iranians can act as “bridges” between the host countries and their native Iran”

• 2003: Namazi interview confirming government’s involvement

“… At present the new policies of the Foreign Ministry have a more facilitating role and direct cooperation of Iranian NGOs with international counterparts is smoother and easier. We invite government officials to participate, and several have come to do so. The government’s professional staff has welcomed such initiatives. … To come back to the question of the Iranian expatriates, the Foreign Ministry has been encouraging us to reach out to the Iranian experts in the Diaspora, either individually, or in a more institutionalized form such as through Iranians working at the World Bank. So in terms of policy, the trend is becoming more positive, and the regulations are being made easier, there is verbal encouragement, but there are also the banal problems such as getting visas et cetera. But generally the government is positive towards the NGOs networking with the expatriate professional Iranians who are working in Europe and in America”

B: Collaboration between NIAC and Hamyaran

• May 2002: NIAC received its first NED grant to work with Iranian NGOs in Tehran

NED website: “To design and implement a two-day media training workshop in Iran for forty staff members from five civic groups. The training will cover public education and outreach, video production, script writing, and graphics usage, and will help the Council gauge participants’ general receptiveness to civic activities. Participants will also be trained in project development and proposal writing and will be encouraged to identify their needs, develop a public message, and outline an appropriate publicity campaign.”

*********************************************************

• 2002-2003: NIAC approached the Iranian government and the foreign ministry instructed NIAC to partner with “Hamyaran”

Discovery document: NIAC report to NED: “FinalReportHGDF”

“During 2002 and 2003, NIAC established communications with Iranian NGOs and worked to lay the groundwork for partnership on this project. NIAC also met with Iranian government officials who provided information about official channels to carry out the project. In the Fall of 2003, NIAC met with the Executive Director of Hamyaran, Baquer Namazi, in Washington D.C. and agreed that the two organizations would begin collaboration on NGO capacity-building and human exchange, starting with the visual media workshop…

Hamyaran provided a letter of invitation for NIAC representatives to carry with them to Iran, specifically stating that NIAC would be partnering with Hamyaran to conduct a workshop for Iranian NGOs. After receiving specific instructions and workshop materials from NIAC, Hamyaran organized the event in Iran, including its communications with NGOs, publicizing the event, translating and producing the documents needed for the workshop, as well as providing for the venue and refreshments during the two-day workshop. NIAC and Hamyaran worked together to assemble the required technical equipment, including digital cameras, laptops, and software. Hamyaran provided some basic equipment, while the more sophisticated equipment was provided by NIAC.

• Discovery document: “Periodic Report to National Endowment for Democracy”

“In December 2002, NIAC’s project manager, Ms. Banafsheh Keynoush, traveled to Iran to conduct an independent research on NGOs in Iran… While in Tehran, Banafsheh met with two important groups. The first was a meeting with Iran’s Foreign Ministry official in charge of environmental activities, Mr. Tekieh Sadat. During the meeting, Mr. Sadat explained the official channel an outside NGO could use to work in Iran. In order to follow official channels, NIAC needs an invitation from a local NGO partner. The partner would send a request to the Foreign Ministry inviting NIAC, and explaining the purpose of NIAC’s project. The Foreign Ministry will approve the invitation provided it is satisfied with the nature of the invitation including the project.

Banafsheh’s second meeting in Tehran was with an NGO called Hamyaran Ghadah (HG). HG is run by Mr. Baquer Namazi, and it is an umbrella NGO in charge of building coalitions among Iranian NGOs and capacity building for the NGO community.

Using official channels: NIAC will contact the Iranian Interest Section in Washington DC. NIAC already has good contacts with the head of the interest section, Mr. Jazini and his assistant, Dr. Mehrabadi. The purpose is to get their feedback on the best course of action to take. NIAC will then contact Mr. Sadat at the Iranian Foreign Ministry and send a fax through him to the head of the Department for International and Economic Affairs at the Ministry. The department is in charge of regulating contacts between Iranian NGOs and their counterparts abroad. NIAC also knows the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Javad Zarif due to personal contacts between Dr. Zarif and NIAC’s Acting President, Trita Parsi, and Banafsheh Keynoush. Banafsheh and Hadi also met with Ambassador Zarif in New York on January 24, 2003 at a reception organized to explore ways of working with NGOs in Iran. The meeting was very positive and Ambassador Zarif mentioned Iran’s interest in working with outside groups but cautioned that Iran’s political circumstances must be considered in all such activities.

• NIAC’s communications with Iranian foreign Ministry

Discovery document: Parsi and Ghaemi’s timesheet: “nedtp

Timesheet by Parsi and Hadi Ghaemi (NIAC board member) shows 4 hours of communication with Iranian foreign ministry

• 2005-2007: NIAC received additional funds from NED and EF to work with Iranian NGOs

Hamyaran was again NIAC’s partner:

Discovery document: “NED_Draft_20050212”

“NIAC will promote the website to Iranian based NGOs through the NGO umbrella organization Hamyaran – who will disseminate the project’s goals and features to the NGO community in Iran.”

C: NIAC’s other partner in Tehran was the “Science and Arts Foundation” (SAF) This foundation’s president is Haeri Yazdi, a high government official

Discovery document: Mansouri’s email, 2.26.2006, SAF connection)

“As for more contact with Iranian NGOs, I was able to talk to Dr. Tabesh and his wife Ms. Momeni who are the directors of SAF and they said they will do their best to make an effective connection with many Iranian NGOs and will help me to go through the interview with them while I am in Iran.”

About SAF:

SAF’s president in Iran has been Mohammad Reza Haeri Yazdi, a high governmental official.

SAF website http://www.science-arts.org/src/story/index.htm

Haeri Yazdi is a high government official and the “General Director for Research, Ministry of Industry in Iran”. http://www.magfa.com/pages.asp?pgName=AboutUs

*********************************************************

D: Baquer Namazi helps NIAC’s lobby to end the Democracy Fund

A letter is drafted in January 2008 by Namazi in Tehran and sent to Trita Parsi. Together, they start to collect signatures. In this letter, they ask the end of “Democracy Fund” and support to the independent Iranian NGOs.

Discovery document: Namazi’s email

Discovery document: Namazi’s letter (draft)

• Parsi sent the draft to NIAC’s employee and asked them to use it in their lobby

Discovery document:: Parsi’s email to NIAC’s chief lobbyist Emily Blout

Parsi wrote: “this addresses teh 75 million”

*********************************************************

• July 2008: Namazi sent the final draft of the letter to Parsi and asked him to lobby the Congress

Discovery document: Namazi’s email to Parsi

Baquer Namazi wrote to Parsi:

Dear Trita,

Tks for positive feedback on above message and for posting on NIAC’s web. I could not find it. Could you assist. It was posted on gulf2000 and CASMII webs.

Your advice and assistance to get it to Congress and to US media and academics and to

Iran-American community would be highly appreciated.

Best wishes

Baquer

Discovery document: The final draft of Namazi’s letter, with signatures

Discovery document: Namazi’s email to Gary Sick

Some examples of NIAC’s lobby to end the Democracy Fund and terminate the US support to independent Iranian NGOs

Discovery documents:

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

NIAC Lobby against the Democracy Fund

*********************************************************

Part 4: Daioelslam’s article in 2008 about NIAC’s fraud, Senate inquiry and NED’s response

June 2008: Hassan Daioleslam’s article about NIAC’s cooperation with Hamyaran and the Senate inquiry

• June 2008: Hassan Dai’s article about NIAC and Hamyaran collaboration:

He explained the relation between NIAC and Hamyaran and the Iranian regime’s involvement with Hamyaran. According to Dai, Hamyaran was not an NGO because it was managed by a deputy minister and also because the government initiated its creation and supervised and controlled its operations.

*********************************************************

• NIAC’s reaction to Daioleslam’s article: coordinate with NED to “hit him hard”

Discovery document:: Dokhi Fassihian’s email to Trita Parsi

“I would talk to NED immediately about this and perhaps consult them on how to address this. Theywill have more resources and avenuesto hit him hard.”

*********************************************************

• NED released a statement and rejected Daioleslam’s claims

On July 1, 2009 NED released a statement in which it rejected Daioleslam’s accusations and defended NIAC.

Document: NED statement about Hassan Daioleslam’s article

“The program was carried out, but not, as alleged in the “FrontPage” article, by working with agencies of the Iranian government.”

*********************************************************

• Senate investigation

Then, the Senate showed interest and asked NED to clarify this issue. Trey Hicks from the Senate asked 3 questions about Hassan Dai’s allegations regarding NIAC’s partners in Iran.

Document: Trey Hick’s email

Then, NED official sent the questions to Trita Parsi. And Parsi sent NED questions to Namazi in Tehran. And finally, Namazi confirmed Daioleslam’s claims:

Document: Barbara Haig’s email titled: “NED Question 2008”

“Trita,

I do appreciate any clarification you can unearth about the following questions we have been asked:

Was Hamyaran managed by Iran’s Deputy Minister and Under Secretary of Health Hossein Malek-Afzali? If not, did Malek-Afzali have any other role or relationship with Hamyaran?

Was family Planning Association headed by Iran’s Deputy Minister Malek-Afzali and another Iranian official named Safieh Afshari? If not, did Malek Afzali or Safieh Afshari have any other role or relationship with Family Planning Association?

Does BoomIran share management with Hamyaran?

Thanks for your efforts on this and have a nice 4^th!

Barbara “

• Namazi confirmed Daioleslam’s claims

Parsi sent the questions to Tehran and Namazi confirmed Hassan Daioleslam’s claims

Discovery document:: Parsi’s email to Namazi

Discovery document:: Baquer Namazi’s response

“Malekafzali held positions of Deputy Health Minister for Research. He resigned recently to focus more on teaching and research.

He is /was also on the board of several NGOs including Hamyaran and FPA.”

In a new email, Namazi reconfirmed this and wrote:

Discovery document: “Baquer Namazi’s second response”

“Dear Trita,

Dr. Malek Afzali did hold positions with the Health Ministry while he was on Board of Hamyaran and FPA.”

These 2 emails confirmed that NIAC spent the NED grant to work with Hamyaran while a deputy minister was in its board.

Hassan Daioleslam’s note:

Parsi’s emails to Namazi seem like a legal cover up for his relation with Hamyaran. By sending these emails, he apparently tried to create legal documents to support that he did not know about Hamyaran’s connection with the Iranian government.

But my article was based on public documents and Parsi could verify their authenticity. Moreover, NIAC’s partnership with Hamyaran was suggested and approved by the Iranian government. Since 1998, Parsi maintained close relation with Namazi family.

My first report on Namzi family was published in early 2007. These reports contained numerous publicly available documents about Namazi’s relation with the Iranian government.

Hamyaran’s leadership and their connection with the government were surely known to Parsi

*********************************************************

• On July, Barbara Haig from NED sent a new email to Parsi and asked: (7.16.2009)

Document: Haig’s email

“Hi Trita,

I’m just checking in to see whether you have learned anything yet. I think I have confirmed that the Deputy Minister of Health (now retired?) that was mentioned in the questions was on the Board of Hayman. How about your former colleague who worked on this (now at Human Rights Watch?), might he be able to give us more definitive info?

Barbara

• Then, Parsi asked her to talk over the phone: (7.16.2008)

Discovery document:: Parsi’s response

“Yes, got a reply from Baquer. What is your number?”

• On August 4, David Lowe the Vice President of Government and External Relations at NED sent an email to Barbara Haig and asked:

Discovery document:: Lowe and Haig from NED exchange of emails

“Did Trita ever get back to you with answers to the questions we were sent by the Hill?

Barbara sent the following email to answer the Congressional inquiry” and claimed that the deputy minister did not manage Hamyaran. This is false information given to the Congress:

(Document: Lowe and Haig from NED exchange of emails)

“Yes. You may remember before I left on my trip, we decided not to stir the pot, but to answer when asked. The then deputy Health Minister was on the board of Hamyaran but did NOT manage the organization.”

Barbara wrote the word NOT in capital to emphasize the importance of this false information. Or, Parsi communicated this false info over the phone and did not want to leave any trace of it. Or, Barbara invented it.

In any case, the screen picture of Hamyaran at the time of its partnership with NIAC shows that the Deputy Minister was the “president of the board of directors”.

More »

March 14, 2010

Below: A very important video series (in Persian with English subtitles), interviews with Hassan Dai, founder of Reports on Mullahs Lobby in the U.S. and co-founder of Progressive American-Iranian Committee, both excellent sites dedicated to exposing the lobbyists of the Iranian regime at work in Washington DC.

Planet Iran will continue to bring you the follow-ups.

Part two

March 19, 2010

Part three:

In 2003, the Iranian regime decided to send a secret offer of Grand Bargain to US. The Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldiman and an Iranian official wrote the proposal. This affaire was so secret that according to Guldiman; only 4 people were informed in Iran. Guldiman came to Washington and went to Bob Neys office and gave him a copy and asked him to send it to the White House. Parsi told the Democracy Now journalist: “I was an adviser to Bob Ney at the time. And Tim met with Bob and handed over the proposal to him. And Bob afterward sent it to be hand-delivered to the White House to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove called back within two hours, and they had a brief discussion about the proposal.”

Below is the video, next installment of Hassan Dai’s expose of this case:

More »

To find out more about NIAC and their activities as the main lobby of the Iranian regime in Washington DC, please refer to the large number of articles on offer in our ‘Regime Lobbies and Promoters Outside Iran’.

To enlarge please click on the flyer:

More »

How Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, became leading advocates for doing business with Tehran

By Lee Smith

February 9, 2010

Source: Tablet Magazine

Leverett in 2005. CREDIT: Reuters/Chris Wattie

First in a two-part series on the dueling Iran lobbies in Washington.

Flynt Leverett is fielding questions from an audience at the New American Foundation for a panel titled “What the Iranian People Really Think,” and the crowd—at least the Iranian part of it—is starting to get hostile. When Leverett cites poll numbers suggesting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most likely won Iran’s heavily contested June presidential election, the Iranians sitting near me in the glass-box conference room direct a chorus of groans and sarcastic laughter toward the podium, where the 51-year-old think-tank celebrity sits with his hands folded in front of him.

During the question-and-answer portion of the evening, the voices of the Iranian questioners tremble with anger. What do you know, they ask, about Iran or its people and how the Islamic Republic treats them? Leverett handles the questions with a confidence born of being one of the most influential Iran experts in Washington—a position that he has earned despite having neither an academic background in the field nor the ability to speak Farsi.

Leverett’s wife and colleague, Hillary Mann Leverett, a neatly dressed, seven-months-pregnant brunette who sits in the front row and watches her husband, is a bona fide Iran expert who served on the Iran desk of George W. Bush’s National Security Council staff, where her husband worked on broader Middle East issues. But Flynt Leverett subscribes to the realist school of foreign policy, which holds that knowing the internal mechanisms of a regime and the particular characteristics of a language and culture are largely irrelevant to understanding its geopolitical actions. Despite their fondest hopes, the Iranian opposition members in the audience aren’t going to return to a newly democratic Iran any time soon because, as Leverett has explained in a string of recent articles including a New York Times op-ed, the current Iranian regime isn’t going anywhere—so we better deal with it.

In Leverett’s opinion, the White House has made a hash of engagement with Iran, and the mullahs appear to respond better to his overtures than they do to requests from the Obama administration: unlike the president, the Secretary of State, or any other American diplomats or officials, Leverett has actually scored a precious invitation to Tehran. “We do not have a visa,” Leverett explained to me in an email. “Which as I am sure you have heard is a cumbersome process.” Still, it’s quite a coup. Access equals influence in Washington, and the fact that Leverett gets to go to Tehran, an itinerary envied by policymakers and access-peddlers, underlines his status as one of the most important Iran experts in town.

The curious dance between Washington’s Iran experts and the foreign government whose actions they are supposedly analyzing has parallels in the ways that totalitarian governments like the Soviet Union and Mao’s China manipulated Western public opinion by only granting access to scholars and policy hands who would toe the party line. Similarly, the Iranian government today decides who in the West will be granted the kind of access that will allow them to speak with authority about the regime to Washington. Western scholars and policy wonks alike understand that access to the regime is a form of currency that can make you powerful, or rich, or both. Washington’s ambitious and talented, its romantic opportunists looking to attach themselves to a beautiful cause, and those eyeing fat commissions for opening Iran’s energy resources to U.S. companies, all see access to the Iranian regime as the biggest prize in the foreign policy game.

Yet unlike Maoist China or Soviet Russia, both closed societies, Iran is a divided country where crowds have protested in the streets for over half a year. The regime there is split into two dueling camps. In addition to representatives of the democratic opposition, Washington hosts a team of experts who advocate the party line of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani—let’s call them the “reformers”—who are critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the supreme leader, but, unlike the democratic opposition, have no wish to bring down the system. But a second team of experts supports Ahmadinejad and Khameini, and no one makes their case better than Leverett. “Flynt has a good understanding of how that government works,” says his New America colleague Steven Clemons. “He sees Khamenei as the guy that matters. What he believes is that Khamenei is a shrewd calculating operator who moves Iran’s strategic interest.” Leverett’s colleagues were happily surprised by the invitation. “New America has been designated twice by the regime as an institution off-limits and I didn’t want us to be on the list,” Clemons told me. “I was pleased as punch.”

The opposition camp has been critical of Leverett for his collaborations with Mohamed Marandi, director of Tehran University’s Institute for North American Studies and the son of Khamenei’s personal physician, who appears to have facilitated Leverett’s upcoming visit. “The University of Tehran is the institution which has applied for our visas,” Leverett explained to me.

Leverett was offended when I asked if asked if the Revolutionary Guard had played a role in his invitation, and yet there’s little doubt that his co-author is personally and professionally close to the regime—and publicly justifies some of its most brutal actions. Since the June elections, Marandi has been the Ahmadinejad government’s key spokesperson in the English-language media, and he recently defended the regime’s sentencing opposition members to death. His true occupation may be even more unsavory. “He passes himself off as an academic, but he’s with the Ministry of Intelligence,” says Ramin Ahmadi, co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentary Center and a professor of medicine at Yale.

Of course, if you need to make the case that you have a genuine channel to the regime’s inner sanctum, it’s hard to do better than to partner with a hard-core regime man like Marandi. In the realist view, Leverett’s strong stomach and lack of sentimental attachments is proof that he is coming from the right place. “Flynt comes from a very strong national-interest point of view and emphasizes energy security,” says David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and a frequent guest at dinner seminars at the Leveretts’ Northern Virginia home. “They’re background dinners, usually about eight to 10 people, weapons experts, energy experts, Iranian nationals, with varied points of view on the Middle East,” he says. While Frum explains that Leverett’s “domestic politics are on the conservative, not liberal, side,” it is also true that Leverett’s fame and acceptance in Washington policymaking circles rests on the fact that he was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration’s Iran policy.

The story of Leverett’s rise and fall and rise embodies the upside-down weirdness of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, when obscure Middle East experts and Washington bureaucrats occupied center stage of the national debate. It’s safe to say that in less turbulent times, and under a less controversial president, no one would have ever heard of Flynt Leverett. Born in Memphis, Tennessee, Leverett earned a bachelor’s degree from Texas Christian University, earned a doctorate in politics from Princeton, honed his Arabic-language skills in Damascus, and joined the CIA during a period when the agency was not especially known for running agents, or paying much attention to Iran.

In 2001, after a decade at the agency, Leverett landed a plum position on the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, then headed by Richard Haass, and was subsequently named senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council staff. In the interagency process that coordinates policymakers in the bureaucracies across Washington—defense, state, White House, CIA—Leverett earned a reputation for committing what are known as “process fouls.” “That’s when you intentionally exclude other policymakers,” says a former senior-level Defense Department official. “Leverett did that to us all the time, withholding a paper and cutting us out of the debate because he feared, rightly, we were going to disagree with him.”

But it was Leverett’s disagreements with the president that, in his account, compelled him, as he wrote in 2005, “to leave the administration.” However, as another former member of the Bush NSC staff explained, Leverett did not leave his post by choice. “The job of a director on the NSC staff is bureaucratic,” says the former Bush official. “If there’s a deputies’ meeting, you take notes. When you get a letter from a foreign government, you log it in and draft a response.” Leverett continually missed deadlines and misplaced documents, and the NSC Records office had a long list of his delinquencies. His office was notoriously messy—documents were strewn over chairs, windowsills, the floor, and piled high on his desk. For Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser and a famously well-organized “clean desk” type, repeatedly missing deadlines and losing important letters was simply not tolerable behavior for an NSC officer, and Leverett was told to leave.

Returning to the CIA briefly before retiring from government service in the spring of 2003, Leverett moved on to the Brookings Institution, and then the New America Foundation, as he began to reinvent himself as an Iran expert with the help of his wife. Hillary Mann Leverett claimed that after rotating back to the State Department from the White House in April 2003 she had received a fax from a Swiss diplomat acting as an intermediary on behalf of the Iranians, offering what the Leveretts would come to call the Grand Bargain. According to the Swiss fax, she said, the Islamic Republic would cease support for terrorist organizations, terminate its nuclear weapons program, and recognize Israel if the United States would in turn guarantee that it had no designs to topple the regime.

So why didn’t the Americans bite? As the Leveretts explained in a series of interviews and their own articles, including, most famously, a 2006 op-ed in the New York Times published with redactions ordered by the Bush White House, it was because of Bush and the neoconservatives, who intended to lead the United States to war again.

As the missed Grand Bargain became another proof of Bush’s incompetence, Leverett and his wife found themselves the center of a great deal of positive attention among reporters, talk-show hosts, and Democratic politicos. The couple was profiled in Esquire, and Flynt enjoyed a guest spot with Jon Stewart. The problem is that it wasn’t the neocons who dismissed the plausibility of the offer; rather it was Flynt Leverett’s putative allies, including then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage. Other staffers don’t remember it at all. As a former colleague on the NSC staff recalls, “this historical document arrives and Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley don’t remember it, and only Flynt does. It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together.”

Even as the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale—a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things—served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime—and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington.

More »

By Dr. Arash Irandoost

14 January, 2010

Source: Right Side News

The White House is in the process of fine tuning its Iranian Policy. On the sidelines, various groups are positioning to shape the plan. Front and center is NIAC, the National Iranian American Council, an organization that presents itself as the Iranian-American voice for Iran.  On the surface, NIAC’s statements sound very noble.  However, if examined closely, NIAC is actually at odds with the majority of the Iranian-American community.

NIAC’s recently published internal documents, which it had to furnish Mr. Hassan Dai, an Iranian expat, who was sued by NIAC for his claim that it is a lobbyist for the Islamic Republic, paints a very disturbing and troublesome picture of the organization. The following information supports these extensive claims:

1.    Representation:  NIAC does not represent a large constituency of Iranian-Americans.  NIAC internal memos clearly show NIAC overstated the true number of its Iranian American members, altered in-house survey results, and mislead Congressional members. With estimates of one million plus, Iranian-Americans in the U.S., NIAC’s membership, as stated at the time of the documentation, is under five hundred members, a very insignificant number.

2.    IRI as America’s Friend: NIAC sees no fundamental clash of interests between Iran and US. According to Trita Parsi, there is no justification for US hostility toward Iran. Trita believes that the Iranian regime has always been ready to reach an agreement with the US. The main reason behind US hostilities and refusal to engage Iran, Trita Parsi says, is Israel.  The problem with Parsi’s assertion is that it contradicts the reality. For thirty years, the IRI has demonstrated a consistent characteristic, a passionate hatred of America. The most popular rallying cry of the Islamic Republic is ”Death to America,” through its well financed and highly orchestrated street rallies.  America is the “Great Satan” and nurtured enemy of Islamic Republic.  It is “the kiss of death” for any Islamic Republic official to show any sign of befriending America.  Likewise, seeking mullah’s friendship by the US is naive and foolhardy and worthless.

3.    Dialogue and Diplomacy: Despite NIAC’s assertion that dialogue and diplomacy is the best approach, thirty years of dialogue by various US administrations has shown that the regime is interested in dialogue only to buy itself enough time in order to develop its weapon’s program. IRI uses its proxies within the United States to convince various American officials that the regime is desirous of a dialogue. The radical and irrational nature of the regime, intent on its expansionist ideology, makes any honest and meaningful dialogue with the regime an utter waste of time.

4.    Use of Sanctions: NIAC has maintained that sanctions are counterproductive and ineffective and will inflict pain and suffering on the ordinary Iranians.  Effectiveness of sanctions as a tool can be argued both ways.  To those that see Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and an International threat to world peace, targeted sanctions are a potent tool.  On the other hand, for groups such as NIAC, sanctions are to be avoided at all cost to ensure the regime’s survival.  NIAC’s campaign against sanctions is not to protect the ordinary Iranians, as it claims, but is an orchestrated effort by Oil Corporations seeking economic ties between Iran and America. Smart sanctions will hit hardest at the regime, and affect ordinary Iranians only incidentally. Targeted sanctions will deepen the divide between the public and the military-religious dictatorship.

5.    NIAC as IRI Lobby: There is extensive evidence that NIAC engages with Islamic Republic’s top level officials, facilitating meetings between IRI and various US politicians, despite limits imposed on it as a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization.  The governmental press in Tehran has called Parsi and his organization NIAC as the “Iranian lobby in Washington”.  Indictments of Bob Ney and Hassan Nemazie with close ties to NIAC clearly paint a disturbing picture of the organization.  Recently, Senator Jon Kyl requested a full investigation of NIAC’s questionable activities, which if successful it might shed more light on NIAC’s real intentions.

6.    Islamic Republic is Rational and Pragmatic: When Ahmadinejad shoots off test missiles while engaged in uranium enrichment, or makes appalling statements about wiping Israel “off the map,” one wonders how pragmatic and rational Islamic Republic really is?

7.    NIAC as Human Rights Advocate: Despite extreme brutality and crack down and stories of rape, torture and killing, NIAC issued a statement on June 16, 2009 asserting that United States “should not interfere” as its involvement would be counterproductive.”  Parsi also took issue with a strong statement of support for the young Iranian freedom fighters expressed by Senator Joseph Lieberman when he urged the Obama administration to “speak out, loudly and clearly, about what is happening in Iran and unambiguously express its solidarity with the brave Iranians.  Trita Parsi, unashamedly, has referred to Iran’s blatant human rights violation as “less than flattering human rights record,” and anticipated “a trend towards the improvement of human rights situation” in Iran.  The reality is, human rights violations have gotten progressively worse.   Iran is second to China on human rights violations and NIAC has never taken a real strong position in defense of human rights in Iran, except for occasional “feel good” and apologetic statements.

Iran has one of the youngest demographics in the world.  Over 70% of the population is under the age of 35. On June 12th, they went to the streets, chanting “Where is my vote?” Demonstrations are getting more organized and are spreading to other parts of Iran to form a truly popular movement.

Today, the protesters no longer are seeking democratic elections; they are demanding regime change.  There are cracks appearing almost daily within the regime.  About 27 Iranian diplomats have already defected.  Many ayatollahs have declared the regime neither republic, nor Islamic.   Any US policy towards Iran needs to seek input from a larger more diverse group of Iranians representing current thinking on Iran in order to develop a more robust, effective and sustainable foreign policy towards Iran.

Trita Parsi left Iran when he was four years old.  He is not even an Iranian-American which disqualifies him to speak for Iranian Americans. His experience on Iran is rather limited to personalities who are either regime supporters, seek economic ties with Iran, or are Islamic Republic high level officials.    Limiting the discussion and input only to NIAC, and monopolization of the discussion by NIAC, and its proxies will have devastating results.

Mullahs are intent on developing nuclear weapons. With a nuclear Iran as a major power in the volatile Middle East and with oil price at 70 to 80 dollars a barrel, the Islamic Republic will expand its presence around the world. In collaboration with allies such as Russia, China and Venezuela, Islamic Republic will flaunt its military power in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate its regional dominance and superiority in the Middle East, challenging Israel into a direct and inevitable confrontation.  If mullahs are allowed to realize their nuclear aspirations, its pernicious and disastrous impact will be felt far beyond the Middle East.

By supporting Iranian opposition groups, the world community not only can avert a regional and potentially global catastrophe, it will help establish a democratic system of government in the region. If Iranians are successful in shaking off the yoke of theocracy, their success could herald the failure of a political and militant Islam. Helping Iran become a democracy not only is a moral imperative, but should be considered an essential foreign policy priority.  On December 7, Iranians demonstrators shouted loudly “Obama are you with us or with them?”  It is time for the United States to place itself on the right side of history.  President Obama has no logical alternative but to stand with the people of Iran or shoulder the responsibility for dangerous consequences of propping up a dictatorship bent on expansion of a religious and fanatical ideology.
=========
Dr. Arash Irandoost is an Iranian-American researcher and a political activist who believes that Islamic Republic cannot be reformed and advocates for a regime change for Iran.   He has been published in numerous magazines and blogs on hakemiat-e-mardom.

He also serves as the international spokesperson for Iranian Students Solidarity Organization.

More »

Top left corner box: Youssef Ghassemi,

Below the box from left to right as circled: Sajjaad Mashayekhi, Mehdi Montazami, Farzad Mihani, Hojjat Vahidi

These individuals have been identified by a group of Green students affiliated with the Independent Committee Against Repression of Iranian Citizens, a Paris-based group, reside in France and have recently traveled to Iran to participate in a gathering with Khamenei.

More »

Ahmadinejad (L) confers with Javad Zarif (R), Iran's UN ambassador, during the United Nations General Assembly 19 September 2006 at UN headquarters in New York. AFP PHOTO/Stan HONDA

December 10, 2009

Source: Progressive American-Iran Committee

• A Congressional delegation to Iran.

Document: Congressional Delegation to Iran

From: [mailto:mshank@globalsolutions.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:30 AM
To: tparsi@niacouncil.org
Subject: Congressional Delegation to Iran

Greetings, Trita -

I’ve received recommendations from Jillian Frumkin (formerly at the Wilson Center) and Lorelei Kelly that I speak with you about a project I’m working on.

I’ve been meeting with a US Congressman and a US Senator who are interested in coordinating some kind of diplomatic delegation to Iran (or Dubai, Ankara, etc.), to reach out a hand to Iran.  They’re both Republicans and they’re not in agreement with how the Bush Administration is dealing with Iran.

Ambassador Zarif emailed me yesterday saying that he’s aware of several Members of Congress attempting to assemble a diplomatic delegation and I’m fairly certain that the two Members of Congress I’ve been talking with have not talked with Ambassador Zarif or even made their initiative public.

I’m also aware that there are several citizens lobbying the Hill next week to push for a congressional delegation to Iran.  So it may be this initiative that Ambassador Zarif is talking about.  One of these citizen lobbyists went with me to Iran last December which is why I know about it.

Anyway, I’d love to connect with you to hear your thoughts on a Congressional delegation and any ideas you might have.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Trita Parsi responds:

Michael – I tried calling you but your mailbox was full. My number is …… tp

—————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi informs Zarif about his new initiatives

Document: Parsi’s email to javad Zarif

5.19.2006

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]

Sent: May 19, 2006

To: Javad Zarif

Hope all is well. I will be in NY on June 1 and wanted to see if I could steal 30-45 min of your time for two purposes (preferably in the afternoon):

1. NIAC is working with New America Foundation to set up a one-day conference on the Hill this fall to make the case for dialogue. We will be flying in 10-15 experts from the region and beyond. We would also like to have you address the conference via satellite link and wanted to talk to you about the feasibility and details of that.
2. I am working with the Strategic Assessments Initiative to work with regional governments to enhance the feasibility of a new Persian Gulf security arrangement. In particular, we will be working in DC to create stronger support for such an arrangement. Clearly, we need to work with the regional governments, and I would like to hold some preliminary talks with you about this, if possible.

Thanks so much!

———————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi wants to see what Zarif has brought from Tehran. The proposal is prepared for the Congress.

Document: Zarif brings a proposal from Tehran

Parsi to Zarif: Wed 8/23/2006 11:04 AM

“Hope all is well and that you are back from Tehran. Would love to get a chance to see the proposal or to understand more what it entails. If it is substantial, then certainly members of Congress may find it a reasonable offer, even if the White House doesn’t. tp”

• Soros at Zarif’s dinner for Khatami

Document: Zarif’s dinner for Khatami

9.6.2006

Parsi: Did you hear back from Alpher?

Clayton E. Swisher:

not a peep.

had dinner at zarif’s last night with khatami et al.  you should know that steve clemmons talked you up a good bit to george soros.

On 9/6/06, Trita Parsi <tp@tritaparsi.com> wrote:

———————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi reports to Zarif

On September 28, 2006 Trita Parsi sent an email to Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador at the United Nation. The email contained a press report that the “UN Envoy Bolton Unlikely to Get US Senate Vote”. In addition to the AP report, Parsi added his personal note informing the Iranian regime’s representative in the US that: “from what I hear, the below article still stands.” Parsi did not reveal in that e-mail who his sources are, and how they are aware of what the Senate vote will be!

Document: Parsi reports to Zarif

9.28.2006

(from what I hear, the below article still stands)

UN Envoy Bolton Unlikely To Get US Senate Vote, Says Lugar
Thursday September 28th, 2006 / 18h58

• Parsi introduces to Zarif the Congressmen who oppose Bush policy

In October 2006,Parsi reported to the Iranian envoy Zarif about the lawmakers who had decided to oppose George Bush policy on Iran.

Document: Parsi reports to Zarif

10.25.2006

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:28 PM

To: Javad Zarif

Subject: Gilchrest and more

Just wanted to check and see if you have seen the draft of the resolution?

Also, happy to hear that you will meet with Gilchrest and potentially Leach.

There are many more that are interested in a meeting, including many respectable Democrats. Due to various reasons, they will contact you directly (partly to avoid going through Jeremy Stone). Their larger goal is to meet with Iranian elected parliamentarians.

Gilchrest is a great guy, low key but very respected among Republicans as well as the Democrats. These members are very disillusioned with the Bush foreign policy and are tired to sit on the sidelines as Bush undermines the US’s global position. As a result, they are willing to take matters in their own hands and they accept the political risk that comes with it.

>From our end, we are doing this because we believe that a dialogue is

mutually beneficial and since a reduction of tensions is absolutely necessary for the attainment of other regional and internal goals.

Let me know if I can be of any further help.

/tp

From: Javad Zarif

To: Trita Parsi

Sent: Oct 26, 2006 07:15

Subject: RE: Gilchrest and more

It is just like North Korea, minus the luxury goods and arms.  It also does not have inspections.  The rest is exacyly the same.  Ironic!  There is an interesting addition.  Prohibiting educating Iranian nationals (probably even in the US) in areas that could help missile and nuclear technology. This can be interpreted to include all engineering and basic science fields.

On the second issue, I am always open to these meetings.  Your help is always welcome.  I leave the modalities to your discretion.

Best Regards,  M. Javad Zarif

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:03 PM

To: Javad Zarif

Subject: Re: Gilchrest and more

Will it pass, in spite of Lavrov’s statements?

Also, have Rep. Maurice Hinchey contacted you yet?

From: Javad Zarif [mailto:Zarif@141.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:05 PM

To: tp@tritaparsi.com

Subject: RE: Gilchrest and more

Something will pass.

Hichey has not called yet.  I met him a few years ago.

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]

I just read the resolution. Paragraph 15 is indeed somewhat odd, in the sense that it will target Iranian students. Was it put in there per the insistence of the US or France?

• Parsi sends his new article to Zarif. The Iranian ambassador finds It “excellent”

Document: Parsi sends his article

12.22.2006

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:57 PM
To: ‘Trita Parsi’
Subject: Blair’s Mideast Message Echoes Past Failure

Tony Blair has toured the Middle East and called for an “alliance of moderation” against Iran, in an effort to restart the Middle East peace process and reduce Tehran’s influence in the region. But the idea that the problems of the region can be resolved by isolating Iran has been tried before – under much more favorable circumstances – and failed. Now when Washington and London’s credibility is at an all time low in the region, can this failed strategy suddenly succeed?

The analysis below, published by IPS today, discusses this in detail.

From: Javad Zarif [mailto:Zarif@141.com]

Excellent.

Best Regards,

M. Javad Zarif

Zarif@141.com

——————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi arranges a meeting between Zarif and John Limbert

Document: Parsi introduces John Limbert

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:40 AM
To: Javad Zarif
Subject: Dorood

Looking forward to “seeing” you today at Carnegie. As many others, I’ve been saddened by the news of your department, though I assume you don’t share that sentiment. ?

Would love to get a chance to see you one more time before you leave. When exactly are you leaving? Will coordinate with Mrs. Kamali to get on your schedule.

Also, wanted to let you know that John Limbert, one of the former hostages, is writing a book for USIP on Iranian negotiation behavior. He interviewed me, but I recommended him to get in contact with you, since you have been involved in all of Iran’s major negotiations.

I know this may be somewhat sensitive, but Limbert would love to come to NY and interview you. Would that be possible in your view?

Regards,

tp

From: Javad Zarif [mailto:Zarif@141.com]

Salaam,

Many thanks.  I would be prepared to meet with him informally and off-the-record.

Best Regards,

M. Javad Zarif

Document: Limbert’s  email

john limbert [limbertjw@hotmail.com] 2.26.2007

Trita,

I wanted to thank you for arranging the meeting with Ambassador Zarif.  We had a very profitable session during my recent trip to New York.

Thanks again for all your help.

Regards.

———————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi meets Zarif

Document: Parsi’s email: meeting

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]

Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:39 PM

To: Javad Zarif

Subject: Salaam

Salaam – would you have time to meet next Friday? I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians.

Sincerely,

Trita Parsi, PhD

www.tritaparsi.com

From: Javad Zarif

Salaam,

I will be happy to.  Tell me when you are planning to be in the city and I will let you know how I can fit it in my schedule.

Best Regards,

M. Javad Zarif, Ph.d.

Zarif@141.com

Tel: +1(212)687-2020

Fax: +1(212)867-5662

——————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi sends his new article to Zarif. The Iranian regime’s ambassador responds: “Many thanks for sending me this excellent – as usual – piece”

Document: Parsi’s email

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:39 PM
To: Trita Parsi
Subject: White House moves on Iran with Congress in recess

With Congress being in recess, the White House seems to have found an opportunity to ratchet up tensions with Iran without facing much pushback. President Bush’s tough speech on Iran yesterday, which followed President Ahmadinejad’s provocative statements at a Tehran press conference hours earlier, on surface appears as business as usual. But if Congress is unable or unwilling to contain deliberate or unintentional escalation, then there may be little business as usual about Washington and Tehran’s intensified war of words.

In the analysis below, published by Inter-Press Services today, the issue is discussed in greater detail.

PS. My book “Treacherous Alliance” has hit the shelves! You can also order it from Amazon here. Israel’s former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami calls the book “a brilliant interpretation of one of today’s most enigmatic conflicts,” Francis Fukuyama says it is “extremely important,” John Mearsheimer calls it “outstanding” and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski writes that Treacherous Alliance is “a penetrating, provocative, and very timely study.”

Sincerely,

Trita Parsi, PhD

www.tritaparsi.com

From: Javad Zarif [mailto:Zarif@141.com]

Salaam Trita,

Many thanks for sending me this excellent – as usual – piece.

Javad

——————————————————————————————————————

• Parsi sends his new article to Zarif. The Iranian regime’s ambassador responds: “Many thanks for sharing this insightful article with me. I wish you continued success.”

Document: Parsi’s email

From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:33 PM
To: Trita Parsi
Subject: Is it really 1938 and is Iran really Germany?

According to Likud Leader Benyamin Netanyahu, it is 1938 and Iran is Germany. And of course, Ahmadinejad is Hitler, he goes on to imply. Bibi’s analogy is very powerful and effective – yet false and tremendously dangerous. As I explain on the blog of Tony Karon (Time Magazine), not only is the analogy aimed at preventing diplomacy and making war with Iran inevitable, the ever so opportunistic Netanyahu played a remarkably different role only ten years ago when he ordered Israel to tone down its rhetoric on Iran and sought to quietly open up to Tehran.

A portion of the article and a link to the full article can be found below.

PS. This episode in Israeli-Iranian relations is explained in even greater detail in “Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US.”

Sincerely,

Trita Parsi, PhD

Zarif responds:

Salaam,

Many thanks for sharing this insightful article with me.

I wish you continued success.

Javad,