This coming Thursday, the Conference of Presidents, under the guise of a mom and apple pie-named coalition, Stand for Freedom in Iran, will rally against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outside the United Nations.** Strangely though, Ahmadinejad is speaking to the General Assembly on Wednesday. Since he is the Israel lobby’s arch enemy you’d think they protest against him on that day. I can’t imagine what they were thinking. The only thing I can figure that deterred them is that most of the Iranian groups protesting will do so on Wednesday. Perhaps the Israel lobby didn’t want to be lumped together with them.
The Conference’s leadership of the coalition is hidden and its name doesn’t appear on the Stand for Freedom website except through a front group created by it, the National Interagency Task Force on Iran.
The only Iranian group sponsoring Stand for Freedom is the Progressive American Iranian Committee (PAIC), which isn’t at all what its name implies. It is actually a front group for Iranians who seek the violent overthrow of the current Iranian regime by any means necessary. It has made common cause with the People’s Mujahadeen, a radical Iranian cult which attempted to overthrow the Khomeini regime in 1981 and has been on the U.S. terrorism list for many years. The connection between the two is via a Mujahadeen executive committee member named Hassan Daioleslam.
Daioleslam is a shadowy character. His bio conveniently omits his membership in the Mujahadeen. Also absent (and absent from the PAIC website) is his status as a founding member of PAIC. He interviewed the “co-founder” of PAIC for this right-wing website and co-wrote this article with him. The vehemence of Daioleslam’s hatred for the Iranian regime has led him into the arms of some strange bedfellows. He’s a regular contributor to Frontpagemagazine, American Thinker and other far-right neocon publications. Of course, the bond is one of convenience and entirely cynical in its motive. The neocons want to overthrow the Islamic regime using military means. So do the Mujahadeen. The neocons claim to support “democracy” for Iran, though not the kind of democracy represented by Mohammad Mosaddeq, has v’chalila. Rather, they mean a pro-western government with the trappings of democracy. The Mujahadeen want a dictatorship led by them though I doubt they would put it that way.
Daioleslam has made a cottage industry out of smearing independent Iranian-American groups which oppose Teheran, but do not favor war due to the disastrous consequences it would have for many innocents. Chief among his targets is Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council, which he calls a U.S. front group and lobby for Teheran. NIAC sued the Mujahadeen leader in 2008 for defamation. The suit is currently in discovery and has survived legal rulings by Daioleslam to have it dismissed.
What it all comes down to is that on Thursday, the New York Jewish federation along with Malcolm Hoenlein’s Conference of Presidents will be lying down with an anti-Iranian regime dog named Hassan Daioleslam. If they’re not careful, by the time they get up to leave the rally they’ll have a bad case of fleas. Though he won’t say it in quite so many words, Hoenlein’s agenda (along with the Israeli government’s) is also to overthrow the Iranian regime. And he wants the world to believe that American Jews endorse his neocon approach. But they don’t. And I hope they’ll open their windows like Peter Finch in Network and shout that they’re mad as hell that people like Malcolm Hoenlein pretend to speak for them.
** Standforfreedominiran.org is registered to the Jewish Community Relations Council, the political lobbying arm of the Jewish community. So it is possible that the JCRC is the guiding light behind Stand for Freedom. But the Conference and JCRC are undoubtedly working hand in glove on this project.
Interesting, but not surprising. The American Jewish community seems to be unusually given to lying down with dogs lately. Unfortunately this applies to that most local of all Jewish institutions, the Jewish federations. For the last number of years they’ve been sponsoring events at synagogues with people like Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, and a host of other Islamophobes. Their goal seems to be culture war but most of them just call for real war.
The upside is that, with so many Jewish organizations doing this, it’s not necessary to be “self hating.” There are plenty of Jewish neocons to hate.
The whole thing is so incredibly cynical – even more cynical than widespread American Jewish efforts to spotlight Darfur (which actually include some sincere humanitarian efforts): Look like you’re defending freedom and democracy, discredit an enemy of Israel, and further the campaign for military action against Iran. It’s too perfect – except for a couple of pesky bloggers who know how to do their homework. Thanks Richard.
You are afraid of the “disastrous consequences” on taking on Iran’s oppressive regime. The truth is in the 1930s, the appeasers and isolationists wanted to avoid facing Hitler and only gave way after his aggression consumed millions of innocent lives. There can be no dialogue with a despotism. It must be isolated and yes – it must be subverted. History will record who was on the side of the mullahs and who was on the side of Iranians seeking their freedom.
Didn’t you read who trained, armed and helped to power Idi Amin? Israel. Who sold weapons to Shah? Who made nukes with South Africa? No dialogue with despotism, hilarious isn’t it.
If we watch the situation from the viewpoint who has the power and is ready for aggressions the “rabbis'” position resembles more that of the situation of Germans in the 30’s than the “mullahs”. Iran is a militarily weak relative underdeveloped country. Israel is an militarily strong, aggressive country with serious human rights and an overblown religious nationalism created by a propaganda machine of which Goebbels could have only dreamed.
Say no more. We’ve all seen this movie (produced by the Likud). We know how it ends (not well). Could you at least come up with a new argument. This one is just plain lame & unconvincing. It’s historically inapt. In fact, it misuses history for partisan political advantage.
So you ARE in favor of BDS??!
History will also note who abused it & will consign them to a special place in Hell reserved for ideologues, demagogues & rightist haters.
Among all the other things wrong with your statement is that Iran has no history of aggression going back nearly 300 years. To bad Israel and the U.S. can’t say the same.
Aside from providing Hamas with rockets to fire at Israeli civilians, of course.
Alex Stein, providing a second party with arms or military equipment is not aggression, even if they are used for aggressive purposes. Further, Hamas’ firing rockets at Israeli civilians, is not aggressive, it is a reaction, however inappropriate, to Israel’s even more inappropriate aggressive and oppressive actions against Palestinian civilians.
Shirin – please call me Alex.
Does this mean you will object to people complaining about the US supplying Israel with military equipment?
And does this mean you are – after all – acknowledging Iranian support of Hamas and Hizbollah?
1. All right, I will try to remember to call you Alex, if it bothers you for me to use your whole name.
2. No, I will not object to people complaining about the U.S. supplying massive amounts of money and arms to Israel despite the fact that it is a violation of U.S. law to supply arms and equipment that are used for aggression, and against civilians. I WILL point out, however, that this does not make the U.S. an aggressor, nor does it suggest that the U.S. is an existential threat to those Israel chooses to attack.
I have never denied that Iran provides some support to Hamas and Hezballah. What I have stated is that whatever support Iran provides to those two organizations is minor, and that in any case it does not justify a claim that Iran is a threat to Israel.
3.
And what was 3?