Trita Parsi (IRI Lobbyist in USA) Reports to Tehran
The Iranian Regime’s Ears in Washington D.C.
Introduction: Ahreeman X
Article: Hassan Daioleslam
hassan.dai@yahoo.com
December 6, 2009
Trita Parsi, IRI Lobbyist in USA
Top Lobbyist for Islamic Republic of Iran’s Terrorist Regime in USA
Introduction
by Ahreeman X
Folks,
After Trita Parsi and NIAC had filed a Lawsuit against Hassan Daioleslam, the Federal Court’s legal procedure was that both sides must have access to each other’s documents, communication papers and other evidence regarding the case. Since then, NIAC had requested the court in 3 separate occasions to not allow the public to view these documents! They wanted to keep these documents secret. Their reasoning was that: “Due to sensitivity of the materials, public may misunderstand these documents and get the wrong ideas about NIAC!” Isn’t it amazing how Trita Parsi and his gang think of public as morons! They assume that people are stupid! The Federal Court had refused NIAC’s requests and allowed the documents to become public.
When Trita Parsi, his gang NIAC (IRI Lobbyists in US) and their ambulance chasing lawyer had filed a lawsuit against the valuable opposition researcher – author Hassan Daioleslam (2008), it was pretty obvious that Islamic Republic of Iran’s Terrorist Regime was using the US Judiciary and the Democratic System to make an example of the opposition. This was an Islamist tactic to silence the Iranian Opposition.
On that moment, Hassan told me: “They will be very sorry that they sued me!”
I knew way back then that this petty baboon servant of the IRI and his gang had picked the fight with a wrong man! Now, everyone knows that the case has started to backfire in Trita Parsi and NIAC’s face! Once the lawsuit was on the roll, all documents and evidence from both sides had to become public. Why? Because the court ordered so! Below, you will read some of these documents and e-mails.
Please notice that the authors of these e-mails such as Trita Parsi, Siamak Namazi, Javad Zarif and other petty servants of IRI are lacking in the field of proper English Language, therefore, their e-mails are full of spell and grammar errors and written in Pigeon English. Some of these errors make the words too hard to comprehend; therefore, for readers’ sake, we have written the correct terms in the parenthesis, after the errors.
IPC is bound to expose Islamic Republic of Iran’s Lobby Groups in USA. In the upcoming weeks, while we will expose old IRI Lobby Groups, we will also introduce you to a number of new IRI Lobby Groups.
For more IRI Lobby in USA, read these articles:
Iran Politics Club Movement index
Now observe Hassan Daioleslam’s latest investigative piece on exposing the IRI Lobbyists Trita Parsi and his gang NIAC.
Ahreeman X
* * *
Trita Parsi (IRI Lobbyist in USA) Reports to Tehran
by Hassan Daioleslam
In 2008, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and its president Trita Parsi filed a defamation lawsuit against me. The discovery process has unearthed very valuable documents that clarify the working of NIAC and the relation of its president with influential people connected to the Iranian regime. Some of these documents raise serious concerns about the possible threat that Parsi’s connections has on US national security. Some examples follow.
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!
E-mail
From: Trita Parsi [tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:17 PM
To: 'zarif@141.com'
Subject: UN Envoy Bolton Unlikely To Get US Senate Vote, Says Lugar
(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
WASHINGTON (AP)--The Senate probably will recess this week without voting on the nomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Sen. Richard Lugar said Thursday.
The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said in an interview with The Associated Press that no meeting had been scheduled to take up the contentious nomination.
The Senate is expected to return after the congressional elections in November. Bolton's is serving at the U.N. under a recess appointment. It is due to expire at the end of the year. Lugar said if one Democratic senator were to step forward and support Bolton he might be able to set a committee vote before recess. In the meantime, he said, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, is holding up the nomination with questions about the Bush administration's Middle East policy.
Specifically, Chafee wants the administration to restrain Israel from expanding settlements in Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bolton, as U.S. ambassador, has taken a strong and visible role in across-the-board support for Israel.
As a result, Lugar said, "it appears very likely the committee will not act" on Bolton's nomination before recess at the end of the week. "Most probably not," Lugar said. Earlier in the month, the committee unexpectedly postponed a vote on confirming Bolton as U.N. ambassador when Chafee, who was in a tough Republican primary fight in the state of Rhode Island, said he had more questions.
The committee had been expected to vote along party lines to approve Bolton, whom Bush appointed temporarily to the post last year over opposition by Democrats and a few Republicans.
Chafee won the primary against a conservative Republican challenger.
Republicans control the committee by 10-8. A tie vote is not enough to advance a nomination to the full Senate floor.
* * *
A few weeks later, Parsi reported to the Iranian envoy Zarif about the lawmakers who had decided to oppose George Bush policy on Iran. This October 25, 2006 email included:
“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.”
The next day, Zarif responded to Parsi:
“I am always open to these meetings. Your help is always welcome. I leave the modalities to your discretion.”
While we can bet on the Iranian regime having many people in the United States reporting to them, it becomes particularly alarming when a man with extensive access to congressmen and women , senators and the governmental officials looks like the Tehran’s ears in Washington.
E-mails
From: Trita Parsi [tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:14 AM
To: 'Javad Zarif'
Subject: RE: Gilchrest and more
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?
-----Original Message-----
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.
Best Regards,
M. Javad Zarif
Zarif@141.com
+1 (212)687-2020
+1 (212)867-5662
-----Original Message-----
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?
------Original Message------
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 (exactly) 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
<mailto:Zarif@141.com> Zarif@141.com
+1 (212)687-2020
+1 (212)867-5662
----------------
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
Sincerely,
Trita Parsi, PhD
http://www.tritaparsi.com
* * *
A few months later, Siamak Namzi from Tehran asked Trita Parsi to report to him about what was happening inside the Congress with respect to Iran. Namazi was at the time the managing director and partner at Atieh Bahar Consulting. The Atieh group has had multiple business partnerships with the government, provided IT services for many Iranian governmental entities including the most security sensitive institutions.
Atieh Group: Atieh Bahar Company and Namazi Family
Atieh Group Multiple Business Partnerships
The group also assisted the regime in its business deals with foreign multinational. (Because of Atieh Bahar’s close ties to Rafsanjani’s clan, some of Atieh’s leaders have been the subject of the regime’s anger in the past few months.) Following Siamak Namazi’s request, Trita Parsi, sent two reports to him in Tehran.
The related email exchanges between Parsi in Washington and a man in Tehran who was connected to the Iranian regime is baffling. On March 1, 2007, Parsi sent the first report about US Congress to Tehran and by email asked Siamak:
“Any comments on teh (the) congress piece? Was it in line with what you wanted? So sorry about the delay, will have the other one for you tonight.”
A day later, Siamak responds:
“Thanks. Looking forward to reading what you have to say about AIPAC. And please send it soon!”
Trita responds:
“So terribly sorry. You this is not my style, but things have really been hectic lately. I cant wait till the baby comes because I am sure that is paradise compared to the current situation… 50% of the AIPAC piece is written. Will finish it tonight.”
E-mails
From: Trita Parsi [tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:25 PM
To: 'Siamak Namazi'
Subject: RE: any comments on teh (the) congress piece?
So terribly sorry. You this is not my style, but things have really been hectic lately. I cant wait till the baby
comes because I am sure that is paradise compared to the current situation…
50% of the AIPAC piece is written. Will finish it tonight
______
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:snamazi@atiehbahar.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:26 PM
To: 'Trita Parsi'
Subject: RE: any comments on teh (the) congress piece?
Thanks. Looking forward to reading what you have to say about AIPAC. And please send it soon!
Siamak Namazi
Managing Director
Atieh Bahar Consulting
No. 14 Fifth Street, Unit 7
Ahmad Ghasir (Bokharest) Ave
Tehran 15137, Iran
Tel: +9821 88 72 1112
Fax: +9821 88 72 0077
Email: snamazi@atiehbahar.com
Web: http://www.atiehbahar.com
_____
From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:27 PM
To: 'Siamak Namazi'
Subject: any comments on teh congress piece?
Was it in line with what you wanted? So sorry about the delay, will have the other one for you tonight
Sincerely,
Trita Parsi, PhD
President
National Iranian American Council
2801 M St NW
Washington DC 20007
http://www.niacouncil.org
Tel: 202-719-8071
Fax: 202-719-8097
* * *
On March 3, Parsi sent him the second report by email and wrote:
“Let me know your thoughts.”
E-mail
From: Trita Parsi [tp@tritaparsi.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:12 AM
To: 'Siamak Namazi'
Subject: lobby piece
Let me know your thoughts
* * *
Through the discovery process, we have received the second report titled “Lobby Groups” that you can read here:
Lobby Groups
Obviously, there are not too many people in Washington who send to Tehran detailed reports on what happens inside the US Congress. The first report that apparently details the Congressional policy toward Iran is still missing.
Game plan
As we have noted in communications between Parsi and the Iranian ambassador, the exchange of information is followed by action to influence US policy toward Iran. This coordination of action is even more astonishing with Namazi. See, how they coordinated a “game plan” to influence the US under Secretary of State. In early late 2005, they planned to meet Burns and brief him on US policy toward Iran. Once again, the communications are baffling:
Parsi: “Btw, for the Burns meeting, I need your date of birth, city, country and ssn” (12.18.2005)
Namazi: “We need to meet up and coordinate.”
Trita Parsi and Siamak Namazi Communications
At the same time that they were planning to meet with Burns, Namazi and Parsi were also getting ready to hold their regular private policy discussions with few close friends who are considered as Iran experts in Washington. Namazi wrote in his email of 12.23.2005
“Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
Let's try to get the group together again before we meet with Burns. That way, we will have fresh ideas. That was the 18th, huh?
It's not a bad plan for us to sit and try to come up with some policy recs. Actually, if you like, let's have our Burns meeting (the private one) and come up with some policy ideas, then pitch them without mention of why to the group to see what sort of critiques we need to consider. I understand that we will have to focus the meeting with Burns on expat issues, but (1) most of our group is comprised of Iranian-Americans and (2) Burns is likely to ask us about generally what up in Iran too. Good to be prepared.”
Parsi emailed back to Siamak and talked about their “game plan” with Burns:
“I guess the plan you list below is for us to first come up with some rec’s, try them on our group, then take the modified version to Burns? That sounds good.
I think Burns is interested in hearing our views across the board. My responsibility as the NIAC president is to also present the majority view per our statistics and mention the minority view. Other than that, we should stick to the game plan.”
E-mails
From: Trita Parsi [tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 8:30 PM
To: 'Siamak Namazi'
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
Hey,
Great seeing you today.
I guess the plan you list below is for us to first come up with some rec’s, try them on our group, then take
the modified version to Burns? That sounds good.
I think Burns is interested in hearing our views across the board. My responsibility as the NIAC president
is to also present the majority view per our statistics and mention the minority view. Other than that, we
should stick to the game plan.
I am not sure whether a third person will be included or not. If so, it will be the Legislative Director that we
are about to hire.
Re the views of the group, the statements and views expressed that I found most surprising came at
times when the US war in Iraq was positively perceived. The timing was more strongly connected to
perceived successes in Iraq, not developments in Iran. In fact, I haven’t heard anything that surprising
after Ahmadinejad. Anyways, let’s talk more about this in person when we get a chance.
PS. If possible, lets not discuss this via your NED account. Those emails are public due to the freedom of
information act
tp
______
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:siamakn@ned.org]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Trita Parsi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
Let's try to get the group together again before we meet with Burns. That way, we will have fresh ideas.
That was the 18th, huh?
It's not a bad plan for us to sit and try to come up with some policy recs. Actually, if you like, let's have
our Burns meeting (the private one) and come up with some policy ideas, then pitch them without mention
of why to the group to see what sort of critiques we need to consider. I understand that we will have to
focus the meeting with Burns on expat issues, but (1) most of our group is comprised of Iranian-
Americans and (2) Burns is likely to ask us about generally what up in Iran too. Good to be prepared.
And, don't forget the emotionalism of the times when judging what people say right now. There is such a
disappointment with A-N that all sorts of things might come out in a meeting among friends. I seriously
doubt that these are the policy recs made in public too. Not to mention, if they are, this forum we have is
the ideal place to dissuade, no?
sia
______
From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Fri 12/23/2005 11:41 AM
To: Siamak Namazi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
He he
Sia – I have heard people from our group say in their own words that they don’t think it necessarily is a bad thing.
Now, harf mofte, so perhaps that doesn’t count ☺ Though we agree 99%, this one last percentage points is kinda important ☺
Nevertheless, people are entitled to their own views - in fact, intellectual disagreements are GOOD things!
I am only telling you this to explain my healthy skepticism as to why I don’t believe it will be easy to come to common and sustainable policy recommendations. I wish you were here when the Iraq war started. It was interesting to observe the dynamics of the ever changing viewpoints and gave a clearer idea of people’s red lines.
This applies to all, not just our group
On that note, when is the next session? Early Jan? Or before New Years? If you want, I’d be happy to meet with you before hand to draft a few recommendations for the group to choose between; that way, perhaps it will be easier to draw the discussions away from talk and towards action?
And if you prove me wrong on the above, I will donate $100 to the World Zionist Organization and drink a Latte at Starbucks ☺
When are we seeing each other on Saturday?
tp
______
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:siamakn@ned.org]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:59 AM
To: Trita Parsi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
come-on trita, EVERYONE in our group is in agreement that war is a terrible thing. you guys need to stop looking at your differences, which are small, and see how much you agree on. basically, everyone of us believe that the way to fix Iran's problems is through engagement. now, we might have differing ideas about the timing and methods of engagment, but not much else.
anyway, see you on saturday
cheers,
sia
______
From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Fri 12/23/2005 10:30 AM
To: Siamak Namazi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
Well, as I said, the war will come after nov 2006. ☺
But seriously, it’s a very serious situation, which is why I hoped that our meetings would focus on avoiding that possibility. But I am not sure all of us agree it would be a bad thing if there was a war
______
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:siamakn@ned.org]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:14 AM
To: Trita Parsi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
I love your message: there's a potential war coming, but right now there are more important things to do, like spin on a bike? :-)
______
From: Trita Parsi [mailto:tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Thu 12/22/2005 3:38 PM
To: Siamak Namazi
Subject: RE: what do you think of this?
Only read half it, but I am in agreement. I still believe that a military clash is likely after nov06. gotta run though, my spinning bike just arrived! Will write more soon
______
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:siamakn@ned.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:22 PM
To: tparsi@jhu.edu
Subject: what do you think of this?
http://open.g00ya.com/politics/archives/041200.php
Siamak Namazi
Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow
International Forum for Democratic Studies
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-5002
T: 202-293-0300 x. 625
F: 202-293-0258
* * *
And Namazi on 1.20,2006 wrote in his email:
“Agha, we need to carve out time to work on our discussion with Burns. If you have any policy papers I can look at, I could also start working on one for Hadley's office. Once a draft is available, we can get input from our network and make it stronger.”
E-mails
From: Trita Parsi [tparsi@jhu.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:31 PM
To: 'Siamak Namazi'
Subject: RE: On MEk in LA times (gheytanchi)
Dude, I fully understand. I want you to know though that I have felt much stronger by
having someone with two feet in Iran here in DC.
Don’t have a policy paper ready, but lets get cracking on one. When can we meet next week?
Yes, re NIAC, it will be very tough. But I just don’t see how we possibly could duck this fight. This will make or break NIAC.
tp
-----Original Message-----
From: Siamak Namazi [mailto:snamazi@atiehbahar.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:07 AM
To: tparsi@jhu.edu
Subject: RE: On MEk in LA times (gheytanchi)
You can count on me where ever I am. I do appreciate your concern, really.
But all my family is in Iran as is my company. Tough times or not, I belong back home.
Also, my credibility as an analyst is strongly boosted by my address. If I stay here I
lose that after a while.
Agha, we need to carve out time to work on our discussion with Burns. If you have any
policy papers I can look at, I could also start working on one for Hadley's office. Once a
draft is available, we can get input from our network and make it stronger.
Glad to hear that NIAC is stepping up on the advocacy side. Now you will have even more
enemies and get accused of being a front for the IRI more frequently. Isn't that something
to look fwd to?
Sia
* * *
It is naive to believe that all communications between Trita Parsi and the Iranian officials or their associates in Iran have been disclosed. To report the goings on of Washington’s politically influential circles back to the Iranian regime is quite disturbing in and of itself, but more so when consider that the reporting individual often frequents the halls of Congress, Senate, as well as the CIA and State Department. There is no indication that Trita Parsi has briefed NIAC members or directors on his communications with the Iranian regime. Therefore it is safe to assume that Even Parsi was conscious that regular NIAC members would not stomach such a cozy relations with the Iranian regime’s associates.
Back to Movement index
Back to Politics index |
