33 thoughts on “Clarion Fund’s New Anti-Iran Film to Star Iranian Fraudster – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Small correction… it seems Makan WAS indeed Neda’s fiance as they were going to get married. Other than that you are pretty much spon on!

    1. Read the source I linked to. He specifically disputes this notion. It may be that at one time they considered themselves engaged. But that wasn’t the case at all when she died. They were broken up & he was dating another woman.

  2. would a rep from the left tell me if makan, clarion fund, woolsey, ehrenfeld, lewis are still part of big oil and its current obsession to attack iran as they so obviously were earlier with big oil’s aggressive iraq campaign then slaughter.

    is our beloved “world’s greatest intellectual” , mr chomsky, available for his luminous if somewhat peculiar interpretation.

      1. Yes, Iason sounds like an amazing guy. I just Friended him on Facebook & he informs readers that he’s now in Dushanbeh, Tajikstan seeking out descendants of Greek Communists who were exiled there after the Greek Communist uprising in 1948 (I think). Amazing.

  3. There is an arabic word for secular: ‘ilmani.
    la-dini simply means non-religious. Rhode’s confussion about the meaning of the word “din” probably stems from the fact that it means “law” in hebrew but “religion” in arabic. .

    1. Yes thanks. علماني is the Arabic word for secular, and the concept does exist outside the Western world, and even in the Arab and Muslim worlds, contrary to what Mr. self-proclaimed Expert pretends to know. Who knew those Ayrabs were sophisticated enough to understand such a concept, let alone have a word for it?

      And if the guy knew even rudimentary Arabic, or anything at all about Islam he would know what din means, and that it means something different in Arabic than it does in Hebrew. The guy is just one more of the many ignoramuses who pretend to know something when they are really just making stuff up that fits their prejudices.

  4. “Why Iran won’t attack Israel
    The Jewish state’s substantial Palestinian population — which Israel once sought to expel — serves as a deterrent.”

    to even discuss this lunacy is to become an idiot and to enter into israel’s propaganda.

    best thing: israel and your western agents shut up.

  5. Well obviously you did not mention that the link I gave is written in rebuttal to Benny Morris’s op-ed in the LA Times

    You see that’s what newspapers do, they publish editorials, This one, you chose only to give the underline that the LA Times chose to highlight, has a whole lot more to say than that.

    American opinion is formed, not just Joe Blow voter’s opinion, but policy maker opinions are formed by such things in case you didn’t know that.

    I just linked over to the website for this latest drivel from the Clarion Fund, due to be released late September.

    “Groundhog Day” repeat of 2008.

    Let’s just see how many newspapers it gets sent out to people’s homes in.

  6. Ilene is right. This is a very good piece and thank you for doing the research. I thought there was something odd in a representative of Iran’s opposition meeting Peres when all the wings of the opposition are as critical of Israel’s tretment of the Palestinians as Ahmadinejad is.

  7. I found some interesting information when looking up who the iranium domain is registered to

    Fund, Clarion ale@clarionfund.org
    Clarion Fund, Inc.

    That is the email for Alex Traiman who is the media contact for Clarion, who also does a radio show on Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews.

    But here is his most interesting position

    Public Relations for Suspect Detections Systems

    Clarion gets to make them all look scary then SDSS gets to sell their wares to pick up the scary people

    Google “Cogito Technology Featured on CNN” for the youtube.

    Maybe it’s just me, but aren’t these films Clarion is producing and the Traiman connection to Suspect Detection Systems interesting?

    Oh well, could be entirely innocent.

    1. Looks like Traiman is the PR flack for Clarion, a job that used to be held by Gregory Ross, a Hollywood right wing PR flack. Interesting why Ross & Clarion parted ways. Traiman definitely does have an interesting set of clients. Suspect Detection Systems MUST have some close connection to Israeli intelligence.

      1. Richard, you shouldn’t be so suspicious! (teasing-back to serious)


        SDS is owned by co-founders CEO Shabtai Shoval and methodology counselor Ishayau (Sigi) Horowitz. The company’s team includes former members of the General Security Services, and a director is former Mossad director Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amiram Levin.

        Looking up Amiram Levin, he was a member of Sayeret Matkal-both Barak and Netanyahu were members.

        Here’s a very strong link, go to Shabtai Shoval’s linked in which has his website listed

        Interesting-Clarion’s latest film is on Iran. Shabtai Shoval has this.

  8. I don’t know what secular means.

    Ummmmmm – doesn’t he have a dictionary? It means not religious.

    La means no and diniyah is the law.

    I don’t know where this guy got his expertise in Arabic, but he needs a new English-Arabic dictionary. Din is religion, not law. The guy is clueless in every way.

    1. And you notice that the JPost article featuring the interview w. him trumpeted his special expertise in the Middle East region, which one would presume meant he’d know the least thing about Islam & Arabic.

  9. i got as far as these paragraphs:

    Yet the pesky Palestinian minority Morris wishes had been expelled decades ago serves as a deterrent from a nuclear-armed Iran, should the Islamic Republic ever build nuclear weapons and consider using them on Israel. The fact that Arab Israelis were among the casualties of the 2006 war with Hezbollah speaks to the reality that no nuclear attack on Israel could happen without the deaths of countless Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention the likely destruction of Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.

    The reality of Palestinian casualties, the destruction of Jerusalem, the onset of regional war and the immediate destruction of Iran’s regime as a result of a multilateral conventional or even nuclear counterattack all serve as a credible deterrence

    the same could be said about grenada not wanting to attack the usa. why not just say “grenada has no thought or desire to attack the usa or that the usa(israel) is so full of shit. that the only aggression is from the loud mouth.”


    1. Right on. The greatest deterrent to an Iranian attack on Israel is that Iran, unlike Israel, is not an aggressive country, and has relatively sane people making foreign policy and military decisions.

  10. Excellent article!!

    I always suspected this guy Makan was a fraud, just like I suspected Chalabi was a charlatan and a con. I have pretty good instincts in this regard.

    Wasn’t the “Pentagon Office of Net Assessment” the Office of Special Plans? But what’s in a name anyway? Both have a fishy smell. Apparently the OSP had a revolving door for Israelis who were involved in cooking up intelligence and their clearance was waived by Feith.

    Colin Powell later referred to it as Feith’s “Gestapo Office”.

    Anyway, hopefully, the masses won’t be fooled again!

  11. hopefully, the masses won’t be fooled again!

    As they say, live in hope, die in despair. The masses are being fooled even as we speak by exactly the same kind of hype about Iran that fooled them about Iraq. Frighteningly few learned anything from the Iraq experience.

  12. Does this critique of Iranium implies Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat?
    I’ve read “Why Iran won’t attack Israel” of the LA Times and it’s argument doesn’t hold water. It basically says that Iran won’t fire because Arabs may get in the way. Well, what if they don’t care? It’s precisely the fact that Israeli Arabs got fired upon by Hezbollah that indicates that Iran won’t hesitate because of the Palestinians.

    Not to mention that the Palestinian population in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon aren’t dissolved and their residents aren’t given citizenship just to keep fueling the conflict instead of letting people get on with their lives wherever they are. Arab regimes can be cynical with Palestinian lives, so can Iran.

    If they ever seriously decide to actually fire a nuke, despite it’s mass murder and despite second strike, I’m sure the muslim population won’t stand in their way.

    As for Jerusalem, it’s perfectly possible with today’s nukes and rockets to turn Israel into a waste land and leave Jerusalem untouched.

    I’m too convinced that Iran won’t use nukes against Israel, at least because Israel’s credible second strike capability. However, Iran’s nuclear program is still a grave threat for two main reasons
    1. The *threat* of nuclear weapons can limit Israel in fighting against Hezbollah and Hamas and I’m sure the well-being of the ordinary guy in Gaza and Lebanon isn’t high on their check-list.
    2. Iran can provide nuclear material to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. If it can do so covertly without an obvious proof, it can create a whole new precedent in the history of nuclear weapons when the attacker doesn’t have a return address so the victim doesn’t have a good second strike option (nuclear or otherwise).

    Here’s a scenario to illustrate: Iran gets weapons grade uranium and plutonium, rockets and warheads. However, Iran never assembles and tests any nuclear weapons, thus achieving two goals:
    a. not setting off a dangerous arms race b. making it clear it could use nukes if need be.

    Instead, Iran provides Al-Qaeda with plutonium which it uses to dirty-bomb major cities around the western world. NATO decides to take action. Trouble is, there’s no one country to fight and you can’t invade them all at the same time. So, Al-Qaeda basically goes unpunshied.

    1. the Palestinian population in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon aren’t dissolved and their residents aren’t given citizenship just to keep fueling the conflict…Arab regimes can be cynical with Palestinian lives

      Oh, you mean just like the millions of Occupied Palestinians who are given neither their own state nor Israeli citizens, which in turn “keeps fueling the conflict??” And the Israeli regime “can be cynical w. Palestinian lives” as well.

      As for Jerusalem, it’s perfectly possible with today’s nukes and rockets to turn Israel into a waste land and leave Jerusalem untouched.

      I see, there’s some special new Israeli nuclear weapon which can hit one small area and not affect the surrounding area? What are you smokin’? If such a bomb were dropped on Tel Aviv it would certainly not lv. Jerusalem untouched. Or have you forgotten radioactive fallout? Or is there a new weapon which avoids this messy complication?

      The *threat* of nuclear weapons can limit Israel

      That’s precisely why a balance of terror could be a good thing when there is an imbalance. I’m convinced that if the U.S. had nuclear weapons during the Cold War & Russia didn’t that the world would’ve been a much more dangerous & unstable place w. much greater likelihood the U.S. might’ve used it weapons or at least used them as cugdels to bully other nations into submission.

      Iran can provide nuclear material to terrorist organizations

      What a load of horse manure. The neocons & Bibi-istas have raised this possibility fr. time immemorial & never provided an ounce of evidence that this was ever even considered by Iran. On the contrary, every statement & action by Iran indicates it has never contemplated doing this & that it would not do this. I dare you to provide a single shred of evidence that supports this whacky theory.

      Instead, Iran provides Al-Qaeda with plutonium

      Ditto what I wrote above. You’re spinnin’ & not doing a very good job of it either. If anyone might do this it might be Pakistan, which has much greater history of complicity w. the Taliban. Iran has never indicated it supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

      1. The difference is that there’s an ongoing conflict between Israel and “Occupied Palestinians” when there’s no such conflict between Palestinian refugees and their Arab hosts. There’s no reason why Syria shouldn’t grant them citizenship.

        You’re right of course that the occupation has to end but that’s no excuse for the miserable state of Palestinian refugees in other countries.

        Richard, exactly what is your expertise in nuclear weapons? Try looking up effective radius of some nuclear weapons and you’ll see that Jerusalem can be spared.

        Iran has a puppet called Hezbollah which it supplies with pretty much anything it has. From experienced officers to ground-to-sea rockets. There’s no reason why Iran wouldn’t supply Hezbollah or other organization with some nuclear material. Who says there’s some magic red line when it comes to uranium?

        The difference in the balance of power in the Cold War and Israeli-Arab relations is that Israel can’t threaten Hezbollah with nukes.
        It’s clear that Israel won’t nuke Lebanon over Hezbollah, no matter what it does. However, Iran may very well threaten Israel if it pushes Hezbollah a bit too much.

        There’s a basic asymmetry here which has and will be cleverly exploited.

        Besides, Hezbollah’s aim is to destroy Israel, completely and utterly. They’ve said so themselves and backed their words with actions. None of the parties in the Cold War wanted to destroy the other in this sense.

        1. “The difference is that there’s an ongoing conflict between Israel and “Occupied Palestinians” when there’s no such conflict between Palestinian refugees and their Arab hosts. There’s no reason why Syria shouldn’t grant them citizenship.”

          You got the cause and effect mixed up. The conflict is ongoing because Israel expelled most Palestinians and denied them citizenship. This syntax even implies Israel can grant them citizenship if the conflict is resolved, though that’s probably not what you meant. Even so, if the refusal to accept the Jewish state is the problem, citizenship rights vis-a-vis Israel shouldn’t be an issue at all. It’s a Jewish state. Granting civil rights to non-Jews is not on the agenda.

          The situation for the Palestinians in other Arab countries isn’t as exceptional as often portrayed. Azerbaijan refuses to resettle Azeris from Nagorno-Karabakh and Afghanistan has a 30 year refugee crisis. I also doubt the sole reason is the conflict with Israel; the Gulf states only grant citizenship to a thin layer of their people and resettling the Palestinians would set an unwanted precedent for liberalisation. Syria also keeps many Kurds stateless.

          Most importantly, it boils down to what the Palestinians ask for. I’m not aware of any orgs or activists who ask us to push for their naturalisation in Arab countries, certainly not as an alternative to pressure on Israel.

          1. Andrew, that’s precisely the point. Israel won’t grant citizenship to the Palestinians. Not now, not ever.

            Between today and some future date when an independent Palestinian state will be established, there’s no reason why Arab nations can’t make their Palestinian brothers more comfortable by granting citizenship.

            In Arab countries, citizenship doesn’t come with political rights, so I don’t see what’s the problem. Once the Palestinian state gets on it’s way, they can happily move there. Until then, let them get on with their lives wherever they live.

          2. And there’s no reason why the state that made them refugees to begin with can not honor their right of return. In two short paragraphs you tout Israel as more liberal than the Arab states (non-Jewish Israelis enjoy political rights until they don’t, say, when the Knesset makes it impossible for non-Jews to live with their spouses) and appropriate the exceptional right to break international law by committing a mass expulsion and barring their return.

            Having a vested interest in creating a refugee crisis doesn’t add much weight to your concern for the refugees when they’re targeted by a third party.

        2. There’s no reason why Iran wouldn’t supply Hezbollah or other organization with some nuclear material. Who says there’s some magic red line when it comes to uranium?

          There are 2 issues here: one is yr baseless claim & the other are the facts. The facts say that Iran has never done anything like this, ever. Never given any nuclear material to anyone. If it had, if there had ever even been whisperings of this the Mossad or CIA would know about it & trumpet it around the world. But it hasn’t happened regardless of yr wild-eyed, baseless speculation.

          Hezbollah’s aim is to destroy Israel, completely and utterly.

          O lord, you remind me of Chicken Little’s “the sky is falling.” You’ve been reading too many of Nasrallah’s press releases. Israel has said many times that it seeks to destroy Hezbollah completely & utterly. SO what’s the point? Who’s right & what does it matter?

          1. What is the baseless claim you’re referring to? The idea that Iran supports Hezbollah? It’s not baseless at all. Start here:

            http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/apr/29/in-search-of-hezbollah/ Here’s a quote:

            “The movement first emerged during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which between twelve and nineteen thousand Lebanese died, most of them civilians and many of them Shiites. Militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hezbollah’s original cadres were organized and trained by a 1,500-member contingent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who arrived in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in the summer of 1982, with the permission of the Syrian government. For Iran, whose efforts to spread the Islamic revolution to the Arab world had been stymied by its war with Iraq, Hezbollah provided a means of gaining a foothold in Middle East politics.”

            Iran is deeply involved with Hezbollah in many ways. Iran has a great influence over it, if not command.

            Sure, Iran has yet to leak uranium to anyone else. However, Iran officially shouldn’t have weapons-grade uranium either. Once it has, and once Iran will admit so, it will no longer embarrass them to provide some uranium to some brave Shi’a warrior brothers in south Lebanon.

          2. The baseless claim is that Iran might give or would give a bomb to any terror group it supports.

            You’ve merely stated that Iran supports Hezbollah. Of course they do just as the U.S. uses Israel as its proxy. But you haven’t & can’t point to a shred of evidence that Iran has given or would ever give a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah. This is typical hasbara geshreying about the sky falling. DOesn’t work here I’m afraid.

          3. Look, I admit I’m merely extrapolating. Here’s what I know: France leaked nuclear tech to Israel in the sixties and the west overlooks it ever since. (i’m not passing judgement, merely stating a fact)
            There is a black market for nuclear tech in which Pakistan and N. Korea are sellers and Iran’s the buyer.

            Given the fact that Iran is in the market and that nuclear tech has been leaked before, it is reasonable to speculate this may happen again.

            Since Iran is on the market and since it supports Hezbollah, Iran *might* provide it with some uranium. Can you guarantee they won’t?

          4. Look what you wrote: Iran was the BUYER (& even this is something you claim w. no proof offered–I’ve never heard that Iran bought nuclear technology fr. anyone on the black market). Not the seller. Do you understand the difference?? Show me a single instance in which Iran sold anything to anyone related to nuclear technology or nuclear bombmaking. Then we can talk. Till then, you’re making no sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *