New America Foundation Banned Organization In Iran — TWICE

-

Black-List.jpgNow, this has to be one of the strangest round-ups of organizations I have seen in a long time — organizations considered by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence to be trouble-makers inside Iran and thus “blacklisted.” Here is the Iranian source — as well as a comprised list of translated organizations from Laura Rozen and Neo-Resistance. (hat tip to Enduring America)
My shop, the New America Foundation, where I run the foreign policy/national security group, has the dubious distinction of being listed TWICE.
What’s strange about this is that in my own writing and commentary, I have continued to be a proponent of engagement with Iran, despite its electoral convulsions, though I have also stated strongly that the people in the streets deserve our respect and the support of American civil society, if not explicit support from the US government — which I think would be a mistake.
My colleague, Flynt Leverett, who publishes the Race for Iran blog, has been a stronger proponent than I have of serious US-Iran engagement and was among a number of Americans who had dinner with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was in New York at the UN General Assembly in the fall of 2009.
Others who comment on Iran within the shop I run are Parag Khanna, Afshin Molavi, and occasionally Steve Coll. Molavi generally disputed Leverett’s assertion that Ahmadinejad clearly won the election fairly, and both he and Khanna described the summer protests as more than just a fleeting moment that will pass quietly — and Steve Coll is extremely judicious and balanced, hearing all sides of the debate about Iran’s electoral mess and the significant US national security priority of working to get Iran off a nuclear weapons track.
Here is the roster of the top 60 blacklisted organizations. I want to thank the Iranian Intelligence Ministry for making sure that the New America Foundation was in good company on this roster. It’s probably a good list to be on — but it won’t affect my shop’s view that we must still configure a serious, new strategic approach with Iran, something the Obama team has as of yet failed to do.
Here is the roster:

1. Soros Foundation — Open Society
2. Woodrow Wilson Center
3. Freedom House
4. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
5. National Democratic Institute (NDI)
6. International Republican Institute (IRI)
7. Institute for Democracy in East Europe (EEDI)
8. Democracy Center in East Europe (CDEE)
9. Ford Foundation
10. Rockefeller Brothers Foundation
11. Hoover Institute at Stanford University
12. Hivos Foundation, Netherlands
13. Menas, U.K.
14. United Nations Association (USA)
15. Carnegie Foundation
16. Wilton Park, U.K.
17. Search for Common Ground (SFCG)
18. Population Council
19. Washington Institute for Near East Policy
20. Aspen Institute
21. American Enterprise Institute
22. New America Foundation
23. Smith Richardson Foundation
24. German Marshall Fund (US, Germany and Belgium)
25. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
26. Abdolrahman Boroumand Foundation
27. Yale University
28. Meridian Center
29. Foundation for Democracy in Iran
30. International Republican Institute [again — see 6]
31. National Democratic Institute [again — see 5]
32. American Initiative Institute (?)
33. Institute of Democracy in Eastern Europe
34. American Aid Center (?)
35. International Trade Center
36. American Center for International Labor Solidarity
37. International Center for Democracy Transfer
38. Community of Democracies (?)
39. Albert Einstein Institute
40. Global Movement for Democracy
41. The Democratic Youth Network
42. Democracy Information and Communication Technology Group
43. International Movement of Parliamentarians for Democracy
44. ???
45. RIGA Institute
46. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
47. Council on Foreign Relations
48. Foreign Policy Committee, Germany
49. Middle East Media Research Institute (described as an Israeli institute)
50. Centre for Democracy Studies, U.K.
51. Meridian Institute [again — see 28]
52. Yale University and all its affiliates [again — see 27]
53. National Defense University, U.S.
54. Iran Human Rights Documentation Center
55. American Center FLENA (active in Central Asia)
56. Committee on the Present Danger
57. Brookings Institution
58. Saban Center, Brookings Institution
59. Human Rights Watch
60. New America Foundation [again — see 22]

Note to Iran’s list-makers. You forgot the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hudson Institute, and CSIS — which I figure all probably want to be added to the list.
You can give New America’s extra slot, well, to CSIS.
Seriously, this kind of roster is an idiotic gesture by Iran’s not so intelligent intelligence establishment as it is implied that Iranians in contact with these organizations will be committing criminal offenses. Let’s remember that President Ahmadinejad himself spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations two years ago.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

52 comments on “New America Foundation Banned Organization In Iran — TWICE

  1. Pahlavan says:

    It’s nice that some recognize the symbolic importance of the tea gathering by the Persians.
    In the spirit of good negotiations, people always show some humility and regard toward the adversary. We’ve done the opposite, simply because we have no intention to negotiate. Our political subculture has been so spoiled here at home they figure if they can pull the bag over the head of all American’s, they should be able to tell others to do as we say or we’ll kick your ass. (oh yes let me add, back to the stone ages to the end of that paragraph) It’s kind of like the “Be Free or Die” model uncle Sam deployed in Iraq.
    Obama can’t invite Iran to a genuine negotiating table, because Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid and Liberman and their powerful constituents (the likes of Rockefellers, Getty’s and Bush’s) simply won’t allow it.

    Reply

  2. Mr.Murder says:

    One of the most splendid acquaintences of my lifetime was knowing an Iranian teacher here in America.
    In my youth he’d invited me to tea drinking with his family. Having other diversions to occupy my time, in high school, it was a mistake to forego such an honor.
    There’s more in common between us as people than there are differences. Both cultures treasure life and its experiences.
    Though I was perhaps foolish to overlook such an opportunity, and years have divided us from company, the invitation still warms me, in retrospect. Perhaps President Obama should offer to drink tea with Iranian leaders and others from the region. A formal invitation to honor tradition could be a way of opening new ground for both sides to think in new ways about the process of engagement.

    Reply

  3. Mr.Murder says:

    One of the most splendid acquaintences of my lifetime was knowing an Iranian teacher here in America.
    In my youth he’d invited me to tea drinking with his family. Having other diversions to occupy my time, in high school, it was a mistake to forego such an honor.
    There’s more in common between us as people than there are differences. Both cultures treasure life and its experiences.
    Though I was perhaps foolish to overlook such an opportunity, and years have divided us from company, the invitation still warms me, in retrospect. Perhaps President Obama should offer to drink tea with Iranian leaders and others from the region. A formal invitation to honor tradition could be a way of opening new ground for both sides to think in new ways about the process of engagement.

    Reply

  4. Alfred says:

    Maybe they are so paranoid that lead them to think it is a trick like the smile of Mr Obama. So they think it is a part of soft war to lead the opposition thinking if they making problem it has no influence of US stands.

    Reply

  5. Paul Norheim says:

    Or you may say that there is a crucial difference between a) empty threats, b)
    real threats, and c) “threats” as crucial elements of the preparations for war
    (with no other function than within the determination to go to war).

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    “At no point did he issue an ultimatum to Iran to change within a specific time or face
    military action, as he did for example with Saddam Hussein.” (David Billington)
    True, but as we now know beyond any doubt, regarding the preparations for the Iraq
    invasion, the Bush “ultimatums” and “deadlines” were simply parts of the war
    preparations, and not just “threats”. He would have got a heart attack if Iraq had
    complied to his demands (which of course would have been impossible, given what we now
    know). There are overwhelming reasons to think that if Bush had issued an ultimatum with
    a deadline against Iran, this would actually not be a “threat” in the proper meaning of
    the word, but reveal his intention to invade Iran whatsoever.
    George Bush never made up his mind whether to attack Iran or not (despite Cheney`s
    attempts to convince him); thus he made threats, in the proper meaning of the word.

    Reply

  7. David Billington says:

    Paul Norheim,
    You are quite right that Bush threatened possible military action.
    However, he threatened such action at some unspecified time in
    the future. At no point did he issue an ultimatum to Iran to
    change within a specific time or face military action, as he did
    for example with Saddam Hussein.
    Obama has set deadlines that have elapsed with no apparent
    consequences and Bush did not to my recollection set such
    deadlines. But Obama’s deadlines were not accompanied by
    threats of military action within a finite time, and neither were
    Bush’s warnings toward Iran.

    Reply

  8. Pahlavan says:

    “Your comment makes absolutely no sense, Nadine, since my post was primarily
    a reaction against someone who attempted to bagatellize the shooting of
    Iranian protesters.”
    There was no attempt to Bagatellize (sp). If Nadine is genuinely concerned about civilian life, there are more than enough great causes for her to campaign for in her own back yard. The most recent example is often the more effective scenario to counter short and selective memory or plain ignorance. I agree that Kent State is the perfect example for the wise and the worthy, but it saddens me to say that if that was a quality possessed by the majority in America, more thought and compassion would have been given to all the innocent people in that region whose lives we have totally destroyed. Why? because our economy was about to tank or a few people’s back room deal making with our hired help (Hussein and Ben Laden) went south.
    If Nadine valued human life, her polarization of Iranian casualties would apply to civilians in Iraq, Palestine or Darfur. To my knowledge she has never acknowledged that rockets only fly after innocent people’s home are bulldozed to make room for settlements that illegally expand. Yet she is quick to use her command of English to form opinions through inserting qualifiers like “Islamo-fascists” as justification to the actions of a greedy and racist agenda set by people living in a complete bubble.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    Posted by JohnH, Jan 07 2010, 3:48PM – Link
    Here’s a book for you John..the “Shadow Elite”
    Probably won’t tell you anything you didn’t
    already know and is not a new observation since a lot of reformer personalities have pointed it out before…and anyone paying atention is well acquainted with the “elite” characters morphing in and out of gov corp international domestic policy roles.
    Still it gives a pretty good illustration of the fact that they are why our government doesn’t work.

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    “Obama seems to have continued the Bush policy of refraining from threatening (or
    carrying out) an overt military attack on Iran or its trade.” (David Billington)
    Bush not threatening Iran? Are you referring to a period before, or after the “axis
    of evil” speech, and the “all options are on the table” formulation? As far as I
    remember, the Bush admin. admittedly toned down the threatening rhetoric
    significantly after the NIE report in 2007, but kept insisting that all options were
    “on the table” when someone asked.
    To me it looks more like the new administration has been playing a bad cop/ (Clinton)
    good cop (Obama) game. The most significan difference seems to be the instability
    within Iran after the election.

    Reply

  11. David Billington says:

    Nadine,
    Thank you for addressing my question. I agree that there has
    been change between the Bush and Obama administrations over
    Iran. My question was whether you think the degree of
    difference is greater than the degree of continuity. Let me try to
    phrase this differently.
    Obama seems to have continued the Bush policy of refraining
    from threatening (or carrying out) an overt military attack on
    Iran or its trade. How would better diplomatic handling by
    Obama make a decisive difference, if the U.S. continues the Bush
    policy of ruling out the overt use of U.S. military power to
    enforce its will against Iran’s territory or trade?
    On diplomacy under Bush, there was a low-key contact with Iran
    to explore the possibility of cultural exchange; this was not
    conducted in secret. There may have been other contacts at
    other levels that were more political and more guarded. But it is
    hard for me to see what a more public effort under Bush to
    engage Iran would have achieved if the positions on each side
    remained what they were. Could you explain more exactly what
    you believe would have worked that Bush failed to do?

    Reply

  12. Paul Norheim says:

    “…except that it loves the first far better than the second.”
    Your comment makes absolutely no sense, Nadine, since my post was primarily
    a reaction against someone who attempted to bagatellize the shooting of
    Iranian protesters.
    From your highly biased position you frequently accuse everyone else of
    being biased, and when you read a post that is less biased than what you
    apparently are used to, you ironize about “European nuance”. Unbelievable!
    What the hell does the word “unbiased” mean to you?
    Unconditional support for Israel, the global war on “Islamo-fascism” and
    neoliberalism, combined with anti-Arab, anti-government, anti-Obama
    sentiments?
    You`re a joke.

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    “I have to say that I don`t get less suspicious when I see attempts to bagatellize such
    acts, than when Nadine cherry-picks among the victims of state violence.” (Paul Norheim)
    There speaks the famous European “nuance” that cannot tell the difference between Islamo-fascists shooting rockets at civilians from behind civilians and democracy protesters being gunned down in the street, except that it loves the first far better than the second.
    Mark Steyn said today that a certain swathe of European opinion has fetishized Palestinians as their cause du jour, and no matter how depraved and disgusting what goes on in Gaza is, they will always defend Hamas and blame Israel.
    Sounds about right. Anti-Israel in an instant, but anti-fascist? nope, that’s not in the repetoire of the modern liberal.
    The first Katyusha landed in Israel today since the Gaza war last winter. That’s a marked contrast from last year, when even during the “truce” there was always this mortar or that Qassam or Katyusha, always the work of “rogue elements” they couldn’t control, according to Hamas. Well since last winter, it turns out that Hamas could control them after all and the shooting stopped. Gee, who’d have guessed it? That what it was about – stopping the shooting.

    Reply

  14. Paul Norheim says:

    “8 People were killed on the second round of riots that broke out in Iran. That was
    equivalent to the number of people who were shot over the same weekend in just one of
    the “smaller” urban markets in the United States.”
    Yeah, and even more in narco-related killings in Colombia, or riots in Pakistan, or a
    tsunami in Thailand.
    I don`t think comparing killing protesters on the street somewhere on the planet with
    crime events occuring somewhere else on the planet is appropriate, Pahlavan.
    You could have compared it with, say, the Kent State shootings (four dead and 9
    wounded) during Nixon and the Vietnam protests – or more resent comparable acts. In
    both cases, it was horrible.
    I have to say that I don`t get less suspicious when I see attempts to bagatellize such
    acts, than when Nadine cherry-picks among the victims of state violence.

    Reply

  15. JohnH says:

    There does seem to be a consensus emerging from
    independent observers as to what the Iran hysteria
    is really about. Juan Cole says, “I have long
    since concluded that the New York – Washington –
    Tel Aviv discourse about the Middle East is not
    about the Middle East but about New York and
    Washington and Tel Aviv, and that it is virtually
    impenetrable because IT IS DRIVEN BY POWERFUL
    INTERESTS RATHER THAN A DISPASSIONATE
    CONSIDERATION OF FACTS ON THE GROUND.”
    http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/iran-and-
    goldilocks-principle-why.html#comments
    And Flynt Leverett notes that “NEOCONSERVATIVES
    and others who have long opposed U.S. engagement
    with the Islamic Republic and instead advocate
    military action and support for regime change in
    Tehran are USING…AND INCREASINGLY WIDESPREAD
    MISREADING OF IRANIAN POLITICAL DYNAMICS…TO
    PROMOTE THEIR PREFERRED POLICY AGENDA.”
    http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-
    critics#comments
    Funny that their preferred policy agenda always
    increases demand for defense industries’ products!
    The main question in my mind is whether people
    like Nadine are unwittingly gullible or whether
    they are compensated in some manner for efforts
    that ultimately support defense industries but not
    national interests.

    Reply

  16. Pahlavan says:

    The link between Jack Abramoff and George W. was also found dead in a park in London (just as one example) so what happened to Musavi’s nephew isn’t a Phenomenon that’s unique to Iran. More importantly, what makes you automatically assume it was the government that took Musavi out. How do you know he wasn’t killed by another citizen that’s passionately pro Ahmadinejad?

    Reply

  17. nadine says:

    “8 People were killed on the second round of riots that broke out in Iran” (pahlavan)
    Does that count Moussavi’s nephew, who was assassinated as he left his house, then his body was ‘disappeared’ so there could be no funeral?
    The numbers are far higher than the mullahs are letting on.

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    “President Bush
    was just as disinclined as President Obama to take overt military
    action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Do you see any
    change in Obama’s policy toward Iran that makes a difference
    greater than this point of continuity?” (David Billington)
    Yes, a big change. Bush tried to engage Iran with behind-the-scenes diplomacy (I know the Dems said he didn’t, but that was just demagoguery; Condi Rice esp. tried quite hard). But he didn’t keep trying at a high level in public, setting up a series of public humiliations. Obama “extended his hand” and got insulted; set multiple deadlines and let them slip without consequences; talked vaguely about sanctions but made it clear he’s not serious; in short, has put on a disgusting show of fecklessness and weakness. That’s actively harmful to America in a way Bush’s policy was not.
    Not that I think Bush was faultless, far from it. When that bogus NIE evaluation came out in 2007 saying that Iran had stopped nuke development, every intelligence agency knew it was bogus and was designed by political opponents to tie Bush’s hands. Events since then have proved it was indeed totally bogus. Bush should not have taken it so meekly; heads should have rolled. Bush’s biggest failing was his failure to fight for his administration inside the DC bureaucracy.

    Reply

  19. Pahlavan says:

    8 People were killed on the second round of riots that broke out in Iran. That was equivalent to the number of people who were shot over the same weekend in just one of the “smaller” urban markets in the United States. Politically charged positions like Nadine’s or the sensationalism we see toward anything relating to the middle-east, further confirms the racism, desperation and the intoxication that exists within our system and society. What happened to America’s wisdom?

    Reply

  20. David Billington says:

    Nadine,
    “What I wanted from Obama was to back the Iranian
    demonstrators who are being beaten, killed, imprisoned and
    raped trying to bring down the dictatorship.”
    Most Americans sympathize with the demonstrators and would
    like to see a different regime in Tehran. The question is whether
    the time for diplomacy with a pre-nuclear Iran has passed, and if
    so, whether the U.S. should try to prevent Iran from having a
    nuclear capacity by means other than diplomacy. President Bush
    was just as disinclined as President Obama to take overt military
    action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Do you see any
    change in Obama’s policy toward Iran that makes a difference
    greater than this point of continuity?

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    “Our college is very low-key and couldn’t be classified as liberal or conservative. It
    is very highly ranked academically, but, except for one woman, it seemed like the
    gathering had no qualms about extending the “War on Terror” to Yemen and sacrificing
    the Bill of Rights for this abstract yet heinous “fight.” (OA)
    I wonder what – if anything – could have upset them? Perhaps if the POTUS declared war
    on Mars, arguing that the planet had become a safe haven for Al Qaeda?
    Personally I would support such an enterprise. There are reasons to assume that the
    collateral damage would be slightly smaller than in the current wars.

    Reply

  22. David says:

    “effective deterrence”
    Much as I abhor the current government of Iran every bit as much as I abhorred the government we inflicted on the Iranians, this and national pride are at the heart of the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. And since we kept the Iran-Iraq War going because it was in “our strategic interests,” why on earth would the Iranians not want an effective deterrent against what we have done to them time and time again?
    I happen to think they are on a self-destructive course, but I think it is for the same reason the Shah went down that wrong-headed road. And I think that for once the US had damned well better quit interfering in ways that advance no one’s well being.
    We most certainly should engage diplomatically, and do it robustly in ways the Iranians can trust. But Rupert Mudoch’s media empire clearly has other ideas. Damn, but the West collectively does dumb just about as well as the mullahs. We certainly reached a pinnacle in our dealings with Iran-Iraq while Saddam was our guy, and we did it again when we invaded because Saddam wasn’t our guy.
    The sheer stupidity of the geopolitical trainwreck we are on never ceases to amaze me.
    Oh, and the Albert Einstein Institute? I guess the goal is to one-up everyone else for colossal idiocy, no mean task given what Israel is doing to Gaza, North Korea is doing to itself, and the whole lot of us are doing to ecosystem earth.
    Shantih, everyone.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    If the US had used military force everywhere these people have suggested it during the
    last decade – from the Georgian-Russian conflict to Iran – America would probably be
    history now. It`s good for the defense industries, and it`s a quite effective tool to
    weaken Obama and the Dems – and it`s also partly a gut reaction that wouldn`t make
    sense in the context of a responsible and coherent foreign policy – if they were forced
    to create it.
    As for the (lack of) credibility of the Iranian threat that Carroll mentions above,
    even WigWag acknowledged this in several posts ca one year ago, and suggested ways for
    America to deal with a changed power balance between Israel and Iran in a calm manner
    (security arrangements for Arab states etc.) The point is not whether one agrees with
    WigWag on this issue; the point is that he/she saw no reason to panic – despite the
    fear- and war mongering from Tel Aviv and Washington.

    Reply

  24. JohnH says:

    Paul Norheim–your answer is very plausible. It is
    also quite plausible that many of the people
    screaming about Iran are tools of the massive US
    and Israeli “defense” industries, witting are
    unwitting. A good way to justify ever increasing
    military budgets is to stoke tensions wherever you
    can, even if a military solutions are totally
    impractical.
    One interesting fact that all these Iran haters
    refuse to acknowledge is that Iran only spends
    2.5% of its GDP on the military vs. 18% under the
    Shah. Meanwhile the US spends more than 4% and
    Israel more than 7%.
    I mean, really, how great a Satan can Iran be,
    when it’s such a little country, and it spends
    such a trivial amount on its military? The Iranian
    threat derives mostly from its utility as a
    propaganda tool, totally divorced from any reality
    of its potential as a threat.
    It’s truly amazing that a country with that many
    energy resources underground doesn’t spend more.
    It’s a testament to their cleverness in finding
    effective deterrence, which could be what is
    really driving official Washington absolutely
    nuts.

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    The whole Iran threat is ridiculous.
    Who thinks that Iran would ever attack the US if they had nukes..or even attack Israel…or any other country in the ME or Europe?
    Why would they when it would mean instant suicide?
    Russia had and still has more nuclear weapons than the US…they never used them and Iran is not that crazy either.
    The Iran ‘thing” isn’t about nuclear threats..it’s about the “power balance” in the ME.
    Saudi likes the current US power status quo just fine.
    Israel wants to increase their regional power and gain clout thur the US power.
    Iran stepping up to the plate and defying the US on their right as a nation to nuclear energy and /or nuclear weapons is an upstart that must be crushed to preserve the reality/illusion of
    the US as the higher authority in the ME.
    As far as Obama not using “fear” on the US public, every time he talks about the danger of Iran having nukes and doesn’t tell the truth about
    the real reasons the US and particulary Israel doesn’t want Iran to gain any influence in the ME or have any deterrence power he is still using the fear factor on the public.
    It’s just another lie.

    Reply

  26. Paul Norheim says:

    JohnH,
    I`ll not answer for Nadine, but my general suspicion is that some of the more
    intelligent people on the right realize what ex neocon Fukuyama realizes, that perhaps
    ALL options are either impossible to implement effectively, or contain a big risk of
    backfiring under the current circumstances. So the point of being belligerent or
    demanding crippling sanctions or a more aggressive support for the opposition is not
    so much to achieve anything regarding Iran, but simply to weaken Barack Obama. That`s
    why they`re screaming non stop.

    Reply

  27. JohnH says:

    Nadine, I was deeply touched by your obviously heart
    felt concern for the poor, suffering Iranian people
    who “are being beaten, killed, imprisoned and raped
    trying to bring down the dictatorship.”
    Now what about Palestinians who are being beaten,
    killed, imprisoned and kicked out of their homes?
    Why is it you are so selective in your concern?
    Sanctions? Surely you joke. That’s been tried for 30
    years! And China and Russia aren’t about to buy in.
    So, seriously, what do you propose short of all out
    war?

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “”Engagement” even as the mullahs sniggered, insulted and disdained him”
    Sounds like the same attitude he’s gettin’ from Israel.
    OA….
    I live in the boonies. My “nieghborhood”‘s houses are 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart, and there are very few fences. Different kinda thing altogether than you urban or suburban folk. My dogs, when let out in the morning to do thier thing, might just take a leak and ask to be let back in, or they might decide to take a walk-about for an hour or so. The only time Jake sees a leash is at night when I take him out, because of the coyotes and more than occassional mountain lion that comes through our neighborhood because of an old established game thoroughfare/drainage gulley. Trust me, “stray” dogs are not what one needs to be bothered about in this neighborhood.

    Reply

  29. Outraged American says:

    Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, went to the
    same college I did (“college” in the US means “university” to you
    luddites in Norway and OZ).
    Anyway, last night, my college had its Phoenix alumni and
    current students’ winter break gathering and I brought up Keller
    and the NYT Christmas Eve Op Ed on Iran. This was because, as
    I’ve mentioned here before, in May of 2005 I had the chance to
    question Keller on Iran and whether the NYT would back an
    invasion/ attack, and Keller said the Times would be much more
    cautious than it had been about the Iraq Invasion Part Two.
    *CHORTLES HEARTILY*
    Our college is very low-key and couldn’t be classified as liberal
    or conservative. It is very highly ranked academically, but,
    except for one woman, it seemed like the gathering had no
    qualms about extending the “War on Terror” to Yemen and
    sacrificing the Bill of Rights for this abstract yet heinous “fight.”
    I fear for this country. I said to the gathering that we were the
    “Good Germans” now, which didn’t go over well given half the
    people there had Jewish last names and one said he had a
    daughter in Israel.
    Hey POA, I hate unleashed dogs running around. Our Catahoula
    mix, maybe because she was a street dog, is terrified of strays.
    There’s this Mini-Pin mix down the street, who was unleashed
    and about 1/8 my dog’s size, who rushed across the street to
    attack her and almost got hit by a car. Imagine how the driver
    would have felt?
    The Satanists next door let their pit bull out unleashed. I’ll use
    an ax on that dog if she ever attacks my cats. BTW Nadine, I
    never said I was a pacifist, I just don’t go looking for trouble.

    Reply

  30. samuelburke says:

    phil giraldi has this piece over at antiwar dot com.
    “Parallel with developments in the political arena, attempts to
    demonize Iran in the media appear to constitute a growth
    industry. False articles about Iran poison the foreign policy
    discourse because they create a dangerous narrative, that
    Tehran’s rulers are irredeemably evil and completely unwilling
    to compromise. In intelligence circles this is called
    disinformation. Nowhere is this barrage of disinformation more
    evident than in the media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch,
    which includes the Wall Street Journal, the Times newspapers in
    Britain, and Fox television. Murdoch’s media marched in
    lockstep as a virtual propaganda mill in the lead-up to the Iraq
    war. Murdoch himself is much esteemed by Israel and by Jewish
    organizations and he has been outspoken in his approval of
    Israeli policies, including the devastation of Gaza one year ago.
    He has received numerous awards in Israel and the US for his
    support of Israel, most recently in November when he was given
    the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Humanitarian Laureate Award. In
    March 2009 he received the National Human Relations award
    from the American Jewish Committee. Murdoch is generally
    believed to be extremely close to Tel Aviv’s intelligence service
    Mossad and some of the stories featured in the media he
    controls would appear to be disinformation supporting Israeli
    government positions.”
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/01/06/wheres-the-
    beef-mr-murdoch/
    the israeli zionist cheerleaders are always here on this blog
    trying to get americans to buy into what serves israels needs.
    israel is a parasite state that needs the u.s to fight its major
    conflicts, they themselves can handle unarmed palestinians.

    Reply

  31. kotzabasis says:

    JohnH
    No war no peace!
    In an essay of mine titled “Obama Sails into Iran’s Rough Seas under False Colors,” six months ago I made the following suggestion:That President Obama in the wake of the post-election turbulence in Iran should come out with a statement in support of the opposition in the following terms: The United States and many other nations in the world would find it very difficult to ENGAGE with a regime that brutally suppresses its own people in whose eyes as well as in the eyes of the rest of the world is an ILLEGITIMATE government. Thus Obama by casting a shadow of isolation from the world over the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad theocracy and by openly supporting the young educated classes of Iran in their revolt against the ‘Caesaro-Papist’ dictatorship, could further spread the division among the ruling elite with the great possibility that some of its key members defecting to the opposition and thus potentially leading to the overthrow of the dictatorship and to regime change without the U.S. having to fire a shot.

    Reply

  32. Dan Kervick says:

    Well, Steve, I guess you won’t be invited to the grand openings of any Iranian buildings any time soon.

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    JohnH, Sanctions might have worked and should have been tried. But no mullah has anything to fear from this administration. As Hillary just said,
    “The Obama administration wants to keep the door to dialogue open with Iran,” she said Jan. 4, then added a remark which let Iran off completely of the American hook: “…although the United States has avoided using the term deadline, it cannot wait indefinitely to hear form Iran.”
    So the Obama administration made two deadlines for Iran to engage: Sept and Dec, and let them both slide without consequences, not even harsh words. If they had intended to advertise irresolution and weakness, they could have hardly done better.
    What I wanted from Obama was to back the Iranian demonstrators who are being beaten, killed, imprisoned and raped trying to bring down the dictatorship. If Obama really believes that he has something unique to bring to global communications because of his multi-racial multi-cultural background, what better opportunity could he have to make a case for freedom from tyranny? But he was hiding and mealy-mouthing all the while — and for what? “Engagement” even as the mullahs sniggered, insulted and disdained him. What a wuss.

    Reply

  34. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Nadine and kotazbasis, you have nothing constructive to add”
    Well, that depends. If one was trying to set the record for the world’s tallest pile of horseshit, those two would be indispensable.

    Reply

  35. JohnH says:

    So Nadine and kotazbasis, what do you propose? All
    out war? Borrowing a few $Trillion more from the
    Chinese to fight for Israel? Having Iran retaliate
    by taking out the Persian Gulf oil industry, like
    they did to Saddam’s?
    Nadine and kotazbasis, you have nothing constructive
    to add. There is no quick and easy military solution
    to Iran, otherwise the energy/security establishment
    would have taken out the mullahs years ago.

    Reply

  36. kotzabasis says:

    Steve, on the issue of Iran as on many others, such as your initial enthusiasm for, and great expectations from, Obama, you are transforming yourself from a “hybrid” realist, to use your term, into a starry-eyed idealist drowning in a sea of mea culpa. To continue doggedly to be a proponent of the mirage of “engagement” with Iran in the face of the inveterate intransigence of the mullahs, their brutal suppression and murder of their revolting educated young people, and their outright rejection of Obama’s diplomacy, makes you an unreconstructed “hybrid” idealist, and like all hybrids, barren in political fecundity.

    Reply

  37. nadine says:

    So, Steve, which part of “Great Satan” do you not understand? I sure hope your new strategic plan for dealing with Iran engages with the reality that this regime has zero interest in engaging with the US.

    Reply

  38. Josh Meah says:

    Does Laura Rozen speak Farsi? Does the translator at
    Enduring America? An online electronic translator
    has 22 and 60 as the same, but there are tons of
    organizations with similar names along the lines of
    what the intelligence establishment is banning, and
    the literal Farsi at least LOOKS different. I don’t
    know Farsi outside of the numbers roughly, but
    organizational names are usually the same no matter
    what, and 22 and 60 do not look the same. Just a
    thought…

    Reply

  39. Pahlavan says:

    I’m shocked AEI, as one example, wasn’t at the top of their list, but the fact that they could come up with names of so many institutions to begin with is very impressive in itself. Not to mention they may also have a good idea as to where the funding comes from to operate these institutions. Regardless, if the mullahs were to ask me, I vouch for Steve and New America Foundation.

    Reply

  40. JamesL says:

    There are dangerous people missing from the list:
    “Iraqi forces and witnesses at the scene said the U.S. convoy was driving in the wrong lane when the vehicles collided, killing five members of one family and injuring seven more Iraqis and three American soldiers.” via Yahoo today.
    Oops.
    And this explanatory video, if you missed it, on US military (policy?) in Iraq from Jan 2007:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UruMsel4Wfs

    Reply

  41. Neo-Resistance says:

    Yes the list is missing quite a few other neocon, neolib, pacifict, HR
    and It organizations!
    It is not a joke that Iran is currently run by idiots whose illiteracy ,
    just to give a reference, very well compares to George Bush’s!
    Congrats on your double listing!

    Reply

  42. JamesL says:

    “BRATISLAVA, Slovakia – A failed airport security test ended up with a Slovak man unwittingly carrying hidden explosives in his luggage on a flight to Dublin, Slovak officials admitted Wednesday — a mistake that enraged Irish authorities and shocked aviation experts worldwide….The Irish were also angry that it took the Slovaks three days to tell them about the Saturday mistake and that the pilot of the airplane decided to fly to Dublin anyway even after being told that an explosive was in his aircraft’s checked luggage.”
    Oops again.
    And these are the guys in charge of security. I suppose that theoretically, there is brief warm fuzzy feeling at some point just ahead of a blast wave. And that warm fuzziness is what we all need to keep in mind as we drop our drawers at airport security.

    Reply

  43. Philippe says:

    Don’t remember who said about the goulag (after Stalin):
    “Despite all the rigor of the place, the company was excellent, we had very interresting debates without fear of the secret police.”

    Reply

  44. JamesL says:

    It is telling that groups promoting peace always receive special special recognition in such lists.
    What has been totally absent in Obama’s policies? A plan for peace. You simply don’t get what you don’t plan for.
    I still retain a thin hope, because the ability to articulate fine points is essential to peace, and Obama can be articulate if he wishes. But Obama’s course, once in office, has been toward war.

    Reply

  45. Paul Norheim says:

    I`m sure some vigilant CIA employe during the last decade more than once have
    considered putting Barack Obama on the terrorist watch list, due to his middle
    name, his pastor and some of his Chicago friends. He shouldn`t be too confident
    when his current job is over – especially if Sarah Palin takes over. Even
    Edward F. Kennedy once got trouble at an American airport – perhaps due to “IRA
    connections”?

    Reply

  46. JohnH says:

    Well, you might take consolation in the fact that
    500,000 people, probably mostly Americans, are on
    the “terrorist watch list,” all without recourse to
    any courts. Who knows, maybe even some of the folks
    at NAF are on it without their knowledge?
    The Iranian government is definitely weird–kind of
    like the US government.

    Reply

  47. questions says:

    Perhaps you could demand to be listed THREE times?!
    When you end up on a “banned” list, take it as a badge of honor. You’ve been noted, you’ve gotten under someone’s skin. Not bad for a day’s work. And you’ve done it twice!
    Seriously, though, what a sign of a regime’s feeling the heat.

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Who the hell knows what kinds of assholes compile these lists? Although I hardly agree with Michael Savage’s insane blatherings, its truly bizarre that the UK has banned him from entering, and included him on a list of murderers and terrorists.
    Personally, I’d like to be able to compose such a list for my own neighborhood. Theres a propane delivery truck driver I’d like banned, and some jackass down the street keeps taking one or the other of my dogs hostage when they show up, calling me on the phone number listed on their collar tags, and saying “I’ve got your dog”. Never mind the fact he lives three houses away, and Louie or Jake are just cruizin’ through on a walk-about. Can I ban him???
    Then, of course, there’s the Little Lord Fauntreloy head of the Homeowners Association, but really, I’m not sure I’d put him on the banned list, I think he might belong on the cruise missile list.

    Reply

  49. Charles Buell says:

    Steve:
    Thanks for noting the duplication within the list. Really
    surprised at inclusion of Search for Common Ground.
    One question: Why didn’t your opening paragraph express the
    sentiments you made in the closing one? That would really
    underline the haste and lack of thought that went into its
    compilation and by extension, the panic that the Iranian
    leadership is going through.
    Best,
    Charlie Buell
    Norwich, VT
    (The url indicated does not necessarily endorse the opinions
    above, it is just for identification.)

    Reply

  50. Paul Norheim says:

    Steve,
    I suggest that you write a new post – related to this one – highlighting the
    Leverett article in NYT in connection with the blacklisting of the New America
    Foundation.
    Just a thought…

    Reply

  51. Paul Norheim says:

    I fully understand your outrage, Steve. On the other hand, when American intelligence
    puts Cuba on the new extra screening list for airline passengers, together with
    Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and, yes, Iran – why be surprised when Iranian
    intelligence blacklists all kinds of organizations?
    By the way, on Christmas eve, The New York Times published a belligerent op-ed
    recommending a military attack on Iran. Today, perhaps in an attempt to be perceived as
    balanced, they publish an op-ed by the Leverett couple – where they dismiss those who
    expect a regime change created through the inner turmoil in the country. The article
    provides ample evidence of the mistake of blacklisting the New America Foundation – just
    like Anya Landau French`s articles proved the stupidity of putting Cuba on the list of
    potential Jihadist terrorists.
    The essence of the Leveretts piece:
    ” Clearly, comparisons of the Ashura protests to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
    projecting a cascade of monumental consequences to follow, are fanciful. The Islamic
    Republic will continue to be Iran’s government. And, even if there were changes in some
    top leadership positions — such as the replacement of Mr. Ahmadinejad as president by Ali
    Larijani, the speaker of the Parliament, as some Westerners speculate — this would not
    fundamentally change Iran’s approach on regional politics, its nuclear program and other
    matters of concern.
    The Obama administration’s half-hearted efforts at diplomacy with Tehran have given
    engagement a bad name. As a result, support for more coercive options is building across
    the American political spectrum. The president will do a real disservice to American
    interests if he waits in vain for Iranian political dynamics to “solve” the problems with
    his Iran policy.
    As a model, the president would do well to look to China. Since President Richard Nixon’s
    opening there (which took place amid the Cultural Revolution), successive American
    administrations have been wise enough not to let political conflict — whether among the
    ruling elite or between the state and the public, as in the Tiananmen Square protests and
    ethnic separatism in Xinjiang — divert Washington from sustained, strategic engagement
    with Beijing. President Obama needs to begin displaying similar statesmanship in his
    approach to Iran.”
    More here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06leverett.html

    Reply

  52. Anthony says:

    Like everything they have been doing these past few months its a desperate attempt at waging terror on the public.

    Reply

Add your comment

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