Review of Trita Parsi's book, "A Single Role of the Dice."

Actually, this isn't really my review - I have been too busy to get the book and read it though I've promised myself I will. I certainly enjoyed Dr Parsi's first book, Treacherous Alliances.

Rather, this is a comment or two on the Leveretts' detailed and quite substantial review of Parsi's book published recently in the Boston Review. And I have to say  I am in vehement agreement with the Leveretts' criticisms of NIAC and Parsi on their two main points.

It is ironic that the centerpiece of their criticism of Parsi's book is his apparent continued insistence on the existence of fraud in Iran's 2009 elections -- and all the implications from that, which the Leveretts point out -- because that was also a point I raised earlier today with Parsi on Facebook, in a comment I posted on his "wall" regarding an article he's written in which he casually repeats the claim that the elections were "fraudulent" (not even "allegedly" so, though he acknowledges the existence of a debate on this point.)

As regular readers of my blog know, I and others have already written extensively on the question of whether there is any actual evidence of election fraud, so I won't bother rehashing the points and debunking the fraud claims yet again. I also won't bother rehashing the point that there was no particular need or reason for any election fraud to happen (short version: Mousavi was a regime-insider backed by a clerical founder of the Islamic Republic and was also specifically vetted and pre-cleared to run for office by the same regime that supposedly felt so threatened by his supposed election victory that it supposedly resorted to massive election fraud to keep him out of office...? Bullshit.) So I have to say that I agree with the Leveretts that Parsi's insistence of claiming that the elections were fraudulent taints his writings on Iran (though, again, I haven't read his latest book.)

Another point the Leveretts make is about NIAC's promotion of sanctions on Iran, ostensibly for human rights reasons. As readers of this blog know, I also have also had a long-standing disagreement with the National Iranian-American Council on this point. As I've mentioned before, this doesn't make me an opponent to human rights. Rather, my views on this point are due to the fact that I think any contribution to the sanctions regime on Iran, even ostensibly for "human rights" reasons, only exacerbates the actual human rights situation there, futher politicizes the issue of human rights and thus discredits it as merely a tool in the apparatus of US domination, and only adds to the obstacles in the way of the one thing that can actually improve human rights in Iran: an improvement of US-Iran relations that entails rapprochement, engagement, the removal of sanctions which can lead to the creation of an economically stable, secure middle class in Iran. Indeed, more sanctions  are not just going to fail in "fixing" Iran's human rights situation, they can only add to the momentum for war which (ironically) as Parsi himself has written, can overtake the contrary personal views and intentions of the politicians and policy-makers.

In short, if you really care about human rights in Iran as well as avoiding a war, you should be arguing for engagement instead of more sanctions. Or, to quote the Leveretts:

To avoid the very war that Parsi says he opposes, the United States will have to pursue a rapprochment with the Islamic Republic as it is, not as some -- including, it would seem, Trita Parsi -- wish it to be.

On a final note: for full disclosure purposes, I should mention that I've known Trita for many years (before he was all rich 'n famous) and I have absolutely no doubt that running an organization like NIAC is tough and requires making compromises and charting courses between often equally unappetizing options. I don't doubt for a moment that Parsi and the staff and NIAC genuinely oppose any US war on Iran, and I do believe that the NIAC and Parsi make valuable contributions -- very valuable contributions -- to the debate over US-Iran relations, but naturally not everyone is going to agree with everyone else's positions on all matters. 

 

 

 

Comments

[Me love you long time]

Your Facebook profile photo is HOT, you gorgeous hairy Iranian man!

[lidia]

Not every lackey of imperialism is "sell-out". Some do it out if pure love for imperialism and its virtues :)

[Goli]

Like I have said before and documented in a comment in your blog and elsewhere, Parsi is just another sell-out trying to fit in somewhere in the spectrum of the status quo on Iran. That's all there is to it. Knowing your views, I am having a hard time understanding why you can't see him for what he is, old friendships aside.