How Clinton Can Woo Back Iranian Americans

43 +

By Ryan Costello and Trita Parsi

Let the wooing begin. After her big win on Tuesday, Secretary Hillary Clinton has shifted her focus to the general election. And with that comes the task of uniting the party and wooing the Bernie Sanders supporters to her side. It won’t be easy – her pro-interventionist track record or Goldman Sachs speaking fees may be deal-breakers for some, but in a contest with Donald Trump there are voting blocs that she can win over if she meets them halfway. The Iranian American community is one such group.

There is no disputing the fact that Senator Sanders has outperformed expectations and that his message has shown particular resonance with young voters and Americans of Middle Eastern descent, including Iranian Americans. Sanders had a commanding lead in a recent poll of supporters of the largest grassroots Iranian-American organization, NIAC Action. Sanders won 62% support to Clinton’s 19%. This is a significant gap and Secretary Clinton should take note.

Clearly, Iranian Americans who have gravitated towards Sanders have largely done so for the same reasons as other Sanders supporters - because of a distrust of the Washington establishment, anti-war and anti-interventionist sentiments, disillusion with incrementalist political change and concerns about increased economic injustice.

But Clinton’s approach toward Iran is also a major reason why she lagged behind Sanders among Iranian Americans.

What it comes down to is this: President Barack Obama, against all odds and the scorn of the Washington foreign policy establishment, pursued patient and committed diplomacy and managed to score an amazing win with the Iran nuclear deal. In one stroke, two disasters were avoided: The disaster of an Iranian nuclear bomb and the disaster of war with Iran. The deal also carried the added benefit of reducing US dependency on Saudi Arabia, whose support for radical Wahhabi ideology has helped destabilize the region and threaten the West.

The question Iranian Americans ask themselves is: If diplomacy could resolve the toughest issue between the US and Iran - the nuclear dispute - what else can be resolved if America continues on Obama's path of sophisticated diplomacy? If Iran and the US can't be friends, can they at least stop being enemies? Can diplomacy be used to address Iran's deplorable human rights record? Can diplomacy that includes Iran finally put an end to the carnage in Syria? And can increased US-Iran cooperation enhance America's maneuverability vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia and counter Riyadh’s destabilizing activities?

The message from Sanders has been clear: Not only would he continue Obama’s path of diplomacy, he would work to widen the window of opportunity with Iran.  The message received from Clinton has been more muddled. She supports the nuclear accord, but signals minimal desire to built upon that success. Rather than being the floor of potential US-Iran cooperation, the nuclear deal could be it’s ceiling under a Clinton Administration.

Additionally, while Sanders has signaled a willingness to challenge the conventional Washington wisdom on Iran by indicating that the U.S. should pursue normalization, Clinton has attacked him for that statement and accused him of naiveté. To many, the dispute reflected the debate eight years ago when Clinton, along with other candidates, attacked Obama for his statement that he would sit down with hostile nations, including Iran, without preconditions. According to foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes, on the day the Iran deal was agreed upon the President traced the historic agreement all the way back to the question submitted to the candidates during the YouTube debate in 2007, showing how important campaigns can be in shaping the direction of Presidencies.

Clinton’s stance toward further Iran negotiations might not ultimately be that different than Sanders, but her attacks on normalization send a worrying signal that engagement would be the exception rather than the rule. This runs counter to the lessons of the nuclear accord. When the U.S. doubled down on isolation at the expense of negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program moved steadily forward in response. When the Obama administration demonstrated seriousness in reaching an accord, however, it succeeded in freezing Iran’s nuclear program and then significantly rolling it back. Why not signal greater openness toward addressing the full spectrum of differences with Iran? By rejecting normalization at the outset, Clinton only succeeds in shrinking the range of diplomatic possibilities during her potential Presidency.

Even if Clinton does seek a further reduction in tensions, there is a fear that her hawkish language could help close the window of opportunity with Iran.  Clinton’s statement in the very first Democratic debate that she was proud to list the Iranians among her enemies  remains a major source of contention for Iranian Americans. Of course, Clinton was referring to the Iranian government and not its people, but she never clarified the off-the-cuff statement. The episode suggested to many that she was more comfortable maintaining animosity at the expense of exploring conflict resolution and areas of mutual interest.

When President Obama began on the path of diplomacy, the first thing he changed was America's language on Iran. Recognizing that the hawkish and threatening language of George W. Bush rendered diplomacy next to impossible, President Obama adopted a much more sophisticated language on Iran to create an atmosphere conducive to the success of diplomacy. Obama never hesitated to criticize Iran, but he always did so while stressing that relations can change and that the U.S. is pursuing a relationship of mutual respect. If Clinton wants to score points with Iranian Americans, she could start by adopting rhetoric that sounds more like President Obama instead of a return to the saber rattling of President Bush.

Of course, the poll also shows that the inflammatory message of Donald Trump has not been well received by the Iranian-American community. Indeed, it's difficult to imagine that a large number of Iranian or Middle Eastern Americans will shift to Trump, mindful of his willingness to stoke fear and racism for political gain. But some may choose to sit out this election unless Clinton shows that she values their votes and that she is interested in building on Obama’s opening toward Iran.



Boosters

Members who have given this post a Boost with their Coins

37 comments

Best   /  Newest   /  Oldest
juvus juvus (@juvus) Pinned comment
Dear Iranian-American people,

Hillary Clinton would be the worst candidate for US-Iran relations, whatever there is of it, after Ted Cruz (He wants to blow your country on day one, but if it takes three days he is ok with that too.) Hillary wants to destroy it too, but she doesn't have an urgent time table to achieve that goal.

Let's forget what Hillary said or didn't say about Iran. I am going to let charts and numbers do the talking for her. They are much clearer and do not do "nuance."

Below is how much money she has received, I mean the Clinton Foundation, from the Saudis who LOVE HER and a chart that tells you how much weapons she sent to them before she left office to say thank you. If this chart doesn't give you an idea what you are in for between US-Iran relation under a Clinton presidency, nothing else will.

If for one second you think that Saudi Arabia is paying her, I mean supporting her, to try to have a good relation with Iran, you are mistaken (mistaken is my fancy way of calling you insane.)XD

Hillary as president will slowly, thread by thread, destroy that agreement with Iran that John Kerry spent so much time working on because she doesn't' like. She only says she does because she doesn't want to call Obama a wuss and blow her chance of being president. You want more sanctions on Iran? Vote Hillary. You want a high chance of military conflict with Iran? Hillary is the perfect choice.

Trump says a lot of stupid sh!t. Politicians do that. Obama promised hope and world peace, and Bernie Sanders is promising free college for everyone and tax cuts for everyone but the 1% so he can pay for it. But Trump is not going to blow up Iran to make Saudi Arabia happy. Hillary will.

In her Aipac speech Hillary said that the US and Israel must be closer than ever. If Israel and US were any closer it would be called incest. But she will do her best to make Israel the official 51 state before D.C. This election may end up being a choice Orange blowhard Vs. Corrupt politician with a war agenda. It could be worst. Trust me. XD
See More
11 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to juvus (@juvus) Pinned comment
Ted Cruz is dangerous not just for Iranians alone but also for the wellbeing of Americans. He has messianic complex with a touch of psychosis bordering psychopathatic disorder.
Hillary Clinton can handle and push forward womens issues. With Iran's issue, it's unkown at this time. women do make good managers/leaders.
As for the other guy's talents and qualifications, if he wasn't born in a billionaire's household, he woukd've made a talented Ford Auto salesman.
Sanders gets it though, he has laid off some of his staff but he wants to complete the cycle, he is a 'good doer' and will not leave his followers in despair, he'll take them along to the polls.
Iranian Americans of all shades prefer a better relationship between the two countries, and why not? As the old Persian proverb puts it: Kashi Behtareh as Hichi'
They've survived for so long and have learned a things or two about Politics American style ' it's always better to be present on the stage and around the table than not',
See More
0 +
 
juvus juvus (@juvus) replied to iraj (@iraj) Pinned comment
Well Hillary's weaknesses have nothing to do with her having a vagina. And she won't be a good president because she has one either, no matter what she tells people.

Saying that women don't make good managers/leaders is grossly unfair. Women the world over manage homes and businesses. I don't know who managed your house when you were growing up, but it was my mother who manged mine and she did a great job. Running a house is not easy. Running a house and holding jobs require extra managerial skills.

Let's not conflate Hillary's weaknesses as a candidate to her gender. America has many great women who could be president, Hillary for this point in time is not one of them. Her time has passed, but not because of her vagina.XD
See More
3 +
 
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) replied to juvus (@juvus) Pinned comment
Isn't this what Trump was say about HRC last night?
Of course even Trump was much more politer than you.
See More
1 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) replied to MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) Pinned comment
I am sorry but i don't see where she/he was being rude!

p.s. It is much more polite not politer!!
See More
2 +
 
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) replied to newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
Reducing Gender to Genitalia is uncouth and low.
Though your lexiconic point is technically correct my main concern is brevity.
Less is more.
If one word conveys my concern instead of three, it's definitely former not latter.
BTW nice hair, is that a pic from St. Patrick's day? And what is that greenish liquid?
See More
0 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to juvus (@juvus) Pinned comment
Touché! Thank you for this comment.
See More
1 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to juvus (@juvus) Pinned comment
You love her don't you?
See More
0 +
 
aram aram (@aram) Pinned comment
This Iranian-American will never vote for Hillary, no matter what she says. Words are cheap. You should judge her by her actions (see Libya) and her funders/bosses (see her AIPAC speech).

I, like many Sanders supporters, am trying to decide between writing in Bernie Sanders and voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party.
See More
9 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to aram (@aram) Pinned comment
Libya is the Republican issue
AIPAC, the Israel lobby, is the progressive's issue. Help me here, which one are you? You can't be a Green and a Repulican at the same time. But thank you for immediately showing up on this website to help us understand this new situation.
See More
0 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to iraj (@iraj) Pinned comment
Lybia is a mess and Obama has gone as far as calling it his worst mistake. Being the final decision maker the buck stops with him and he's too classy to blame anybody but himself. Yet, it's widely known that then Secretary of State Clinton lead the push for the aggressive policy to remove Gaddafi with no cohesive plan to deal with the aftermath. So no, sorry it's not a Republican issue...

"Asked for his worst mistake while in office, Mr Obama named the failure to plan for the aftermath of Col Gaddafi's ousting as Libyan leader, which sparked years of instability that are only just showing signs of easing." www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36018223
See More
0 +
 
Dakho Dakho (@Dakho) replied to leyla (@leyla) Pinned comment
But even Obama seems to be keeping making the same mistakes. Currently he's sending additional troops to Syria, but announcing over & over again these troops won't be engaged in fighting and will only have advisory capacity.
However in today's congressional hearing both Obama's secretary of defense & joint chief of staff explicitly told lawmakers that US troops were directly involved in fighting (in Iraq & Syria) and some have been killed in the past few weeks.
Could he be concerned with his legacy above all else?
See More
1 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to Dakho (@Dakho) Pinned comment
Of course he's concerned about his legacy. Can we name a President who was not?

"While Mr. Obama would like to burnish his legacy with an unprecedented military aid pact with Israel, some observers in the United States and Israel believe that Mr. Netanyahu is calculating that he can reach a more advantageous deal with a future president."
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/world/middleeast/obama-netanyahu-rift-impedes-us-offer-of-record-aid-deal-for-israel.html
See More
0 +
 
Dakho Dakho (@Dakho) replied to leyla (@leyla) Pinned comment
So Obama keeps saying the troops he's sending won't be involved in fighting.
But his secretary of defense in a congressional hearing says that's not entirely accurate or true.
What kind of a legacy is that?
See More
1 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to leyla (@leyla) Pinned comment
One has to stay true to truth and to oneself. What happened in Libya had little to do with her actions. What went with libya, and still is going on with Libya is a part of the grand design of Saudis, Europeans and the neocons in America and she was a part of the American administration suffice to say.
Did she start a war that killed more than 4500 American soldiers in Iraq and thousands more in Afghanistan?
www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/08/how-neocons-destabilized-europe
See More
0 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to iraj (@iraj) Pinned comment
We weren't talking about Iraq. I was simply responding to your comment that "Libya is the Republican issue" which it's not.
See More
0 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to leyla (@leyla) Pinned comment
Lost in translation I guess, by Libya being a Republican issue, I meant the Republicans have put the blame on Hillary Clinton for the attack on the US embassy.
And mentioning the number of US casualties in Iraq was meant to contrast he number of Americans who died under a Republican president, and yes she did vote for that war.
Does it make her worse than Cruz or Trump? Not by a long shot.
See More
0 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to iraj (@iraj) Pinned comment
The Democrats who voted for the war are complicit so let's not conveniently give them a pass.

Oh, that other Libya issue. Thanks for clarifying. Yea, it's been politicized but add that to HRCs list of poor decision making.

Does it make her worse than Cruz or Trump? I believe in principled voting and exercise my power of choice when not supporting the lesser of two evils.
See More
0 +
 
aram aram (@aram) replied to iraj (@iraj) Pinned comment
Huh? Who was talking about the embassy attack? Who gives a rat's ass about a bunch of CIA types who got killed???

As Seymour Herch has pointed out, they were engaged in a gun-running operation to jihadists in Syria:

www.mintpressnews.com/seymour-hersh-benghazi-attack-a-consequence-of-weapons-rat-line-to-syria/189261/

I was talking about is a country of over 6 million poor souls who have to deal with a failed state because Hillary convinced Obama to overthrow their government (yes a dictatorship run by a clown, but at least it was a functioning state that provided basic services to its people).
See More
0 +
 
U999 U999 (@U999) Pinned comment
If you are happy with the situation in Libya, Syria, Yemen & Iraq, and want something similar for Iran, then you should definitely support Hilary Clinton & her neoconservative advisors. The idea that Hilary is going to change her war-is-good perspective in response to reasonable argument is politically naive.
See More
7 +
 
iraj iraj (@iraj) replied to U999 (@U999) Pinned comment
And who do you recommend to vote for?
Cruz, Trump, anybody?
Or should I just boycott this whole thing?
Please advise.
See More
0 +
 
lizzy lizzy (@lizzy) Pinned comment
It's so good to see that the Iranian American community is having such a discourse and what a wise and sensible piece by the authors. As immigrants, like myself (I'm Cuban American), we often have a global view than extends beyond domestic issues and empathy for people living abroad.

@aram @juvus @U999 @AmirJaan Yes, she has exhibited poor judgement time and again, especially with her yes vote to go to war with Iraq and during her short stint as Secretary of State (which was a debacle). I would never vote for a pro-war candidate, period.

The US is a superpower in decline, but still wields more global influence than any other nation. With this power comes the extraordinary responsibility of working towards a peaceful, prosperous, and free world. Other than perhaps global warming, no single issue, including women's rights, gun-control, campaign reform, etc. is more important than leading from the front to help preserve and achieve global peace for all.

Sadly, most Americans live in a bubble, disinterested and apathetic to the global misery and havoc created by hawkish foreign policies like those of Secretary Clinton. It makes me sad and angry, because peace, prosperity and freedom are basic human rights that we all too often violate for no justifiable reason; moreover, they are rights that should be afforded to all people, no matter the color of their skin, religion or geography.
See More
5 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
Cont. from part 1
part 2 of 2

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary’s game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.
See More
4 +
 
Hdaneshzadeh Hdaneshzadeh (@Hdaneshzadeh) Pinned comment
When Bill Clinton was asked right after 911 attack 'who did you think did this' he responded : Iranians.
That attitude runs in the familly.
She is very much hawkish on Iran.
She is buddy buddy with Wall Street. She refuses to release the transcript of her speeches to them. Keep in mind that it was Bill Clinton who deregulated Wall Street. I don't trust Hillary as far as I can through her. I frankly don't like her. Having said all that, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. It does not look like Bernie is going to get the nomination. I generally don't like republican idiologies. It is very hard to vote for Hillary. It goes against every fiber in my body.
See More
4 +
 
AmirJaan Amir (@AmirJaan) Pinned comment
Interesting stat as I did not realize that the Iranian-American community thought sooo poorly of Clinton (19%).

@U999 I'm with you in that I have seen no shred of evidence leading me to believe that she will shift from her 'war-is-good' (aggressive/interventionist world-view), to a more measured & reasonable approach.
See More
4 +
 
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) replied to Amir (@AmirJaan) Pinned comment
Just as a reminder, the survey that is referred to in this piece was based on asking 1,5000 Iranian Americans (that is 1,500 from a total of 1,000,000 Iranian Americans living in the US), which means the survey covers only 0.15% of the community.
Could such a minuscule percentage give us an accurate picture of the broader community?
Highly unlikely.
See More
0 +
 
AmirJaan Amir (@AmirJaan) replied to MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) Pinned comment
I have often wondered the same thing about various political polls that often have only a few hundred repondents (CNN, Gallup etc). Turns out that you only need a very small sample size for a poll to be legitimate. Consider this from PollingReport.com

"1. Why am I or my friends never included in political polls conducted for the media?

The reason is fairly simple. There are about 200 million adult or voting-age Americans. But the average poll has a sample size of 1,000 adults. This means that only one person in 200,000 will be included in any one national or state poll. To put it another way, it would take 200,000 polls with samples of 1,000 for pollsters to get around to all Americans -- and this assumes no one is called twice."

www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm
See More
0 +
 
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) replied to Amir (@AmirJaan) Pinned comment
Of course inaccuracy of the data presented here is only tip of the iceberg when thinking about all the distortions with these 'community organizations.'
There's also the important issue of the Donor Class within these groups and how in most cases these donors fill up the boards and largely decide the course these groups take. It's interesting that we all criticize US politics for being driven with large donors but when it comes to our own 'community organizations' there's not a word about the distortive effects of big donors.
Internal dynamics and organizational procedures of these 'community organizations' are also never mentioned. How and why is it that AIC is basically Amirahmady's little shop and that's the end of it. Or other instances of self-appointed, life-long presidents.
All and all looks like we're doing a lot of sleep walking when discussing the 'community!'
Any wonder why it remains so fragmented and ineffectual.
See More
0 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

part 1 of 2

cont..
See More
3 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
Trita Parsi should tread carefully! First of all she hasn't won the nomination but even if she did Iranians are not going to forget this war monger. You of all people Trita Parsi and NIAC who were the target of pro Israeli lobbyists and AIPAC who thought you were lobbying for the Islamic Republic should know better than anybody who this woman is and what she is capable of. I as a progressive Iranian American will not vote for Hillary. She is dangerous and she has a track record of breaking laws and playing favoritism for personal and financial gain. Why would any one want to support her is beyond me but Iranian Americans who are political savvy (after years of dealing with slimy politics of our own in Islamic Republic), demand change of the status qua just as we demand it in Iran. Politics in US has increasingly morphed into the politics of 3rd world such as in Iran with the vote coming into play after the establishment reveals you their choices, Hillary sitting at the top of the bunch. Things need to change and change they will. NIAC and its leadership seem to only care about how much money they can raise to stay afloat rather than have any real impact on America politics or Iranian Americans. NIAC who claims to be grassroots has learned nothing from the Sanders campaign. They still rely on the wealthy connected and the corrupt to support and fund them not ordinary Iranians. Iranian Americans are also split into closeted supporters of Trump and vocal supporters of Sanders just as they are supporters of Hillary. Most Iranian Jews love Hillary because of her unbreakable devotion to the apartheid state of Israel and hawkish stance against Iran, something NIAC used to oppose and used to organize supporters.
Trita's NIAC need to explain: What happened to your opposition to AIPAC? Hillary is their darling and their favorite candidate. Do you now want people to support AIPAC's candidate?! Did AIPAC buy you out and we are not aware of that?
See More
3 +
 
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) Pinned comment
She has already wooed the money makers and doesn't give a ... to those who cannot afford more than $27.00. In addition, she is too cozy with the Israeli government not to give in to their pressure. Furthermore, those who will be pouring additional money into her coffers during her May 17 fundraiser in Israel will not be doing it for the kindness their heart, as we all know.
See More
1 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) Pinned comment
Is she really doing fundraising in Israel? Isn't that illegal?!
See More
0 +
 
leyla leyla (@leyla) replied to newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
Yes, apparently so. goo.gl/2bzbYG
See More
0 +
 
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) Pinned comment
Not sure about you all but reading this piece raised more questions for me than any answers, questions like:

- Since when have Iranian-Americans become a group?
There are about three to four separate Iranian-American organizations (depending how you count them) each claiming to be THE representative of the community but the best all of them could do, up to now, has been to issue a joint statement against Visa Rules. But they couldn't even initiate a joint petition drive, had to rely on White House website for the petition and at the end failed to even gather 10,000 minimum signatures needed.

- There are approximately a 1,000,000 Iranian Americans and even the "supporters of the largest grassroots Iranian-American organization" can't claim to have more than 1,500 participants in its survey. How could 1.5% of a community represents an accurate reflection of a communities sentiments and political tendencies?

What I see here are just a bunch of self-appointed 'community leaders' pretending they have some sort of political delegation from the larger community (of 1,000,000) while in reality they don't represent even a mere two percent of it.

Last but not least I would like to know what are the internal decision making procedures in these groups regarding their leadership bodies. It looks like they have self-appointed, life-long presidents, but truth be told I firmly believe I'm the one with the best credentials to be a self-appointed, life long-president.

P.S. The very first major shift in diplomatic tone with Islamic Republic occurred under Clinton's administration when Madeline Allbright (Clinton's Secretary of State) officially and profusely apologized for the 1953 US engineered coup in Iran.

2000- Madeleine Albright on Operation Ajax
See More
0 +
 
newnative newnative (@newnative) Pinned comment
See More
0 +
 
More