People Power

Why the rout of Gadhafi undermines the idea of American exceptionalism


People Power
by Trita Parsi

Should President Obama get credit for the imminent fall of the Moammar Gadhafi regime in Libya? Or should President’s George W. Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy be credited? True to form, Washington has boiled the complex issues surrounding the Libya intervention down to a simplistic question. But it’s a false choice. More than anything, Libya -- and the Arab Spring as a whole -- is showing the limited influence of the United States when compared to the power of the people in the region when they take charge of their own destiny.

The Libya experience pointedly shows the fallacy of the neoconservative thesis that talking to your enemies strengthens and legitimizes them. This argument was repeated so frequently during the Bush presidency that it became a truism. The United States shouldn’t talk to North Korea because that would be a concession. It shouldn’t talk to Iran, because Tehran does not deserve our company. And Washington should not talk to the Syrians because that would strengthen Assad’s rule.

Yet Bush did not shun the regime of Gadhafi. The Bush administration itself continued the secret negotiations with Tripoli that had begun under President Bill Clinton. After almost exactly seven years, a deal was struck. Libya gave up its nuclear program and the West began lifting its sanctions.

And it wasn’t just the United States. French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who credits himself for having been the force behind NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya, hosted Gadhafi in Paris in December 2007. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown tried to do the same in December 2008. He extended an invitation to Gadhafi to come to London, but a final date for the visit was never secured.

In fact, almost exactly a year ago, leading neoconservative Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham met with Gadhafi in Tripoli and assured him "that the United States wanted to provide Libya with military equipment."

Neither these visits, nor the preceding diplomacy, secured Gadhafi from the wrath of his own people. It did not bestow upon his revolting regime a single drop of legitimacy. It simply remained its rotten, corrupt and dictatorial self.

The same was true for the regime of the Shah of Iran and Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. The Shah was one of America’s closest allies. President Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah in Tehran on New Year’s Eve 1977, calling Iran an "island of stability" in a troubled Middle East. A year later, following a popular uprising, the Shah’s regime was no more.

Yet for all this experience in the Middle East, neoconservatives continue to assume that America is the universal source of legitimacy. Like King Midas, anything it touches -- or talks to -- is legitimized and turns into gold. Thus, to talk to another country is to do it a favor. And we should only do favors to our friends. Our enemies, we should defeat by force, not through conversation.

This line of thinking reveals three additional false notions, relevant not just to Libya, but also to the Arab Spring and to U.S. policy toward Iran.

First, that indigenous populations have essentially no ability to bestow legitimacy on their governments. America decides what is legitimate or not for them; they themselves have no say in this. The social contract is not between the populations and their state, but rather, between the state and the government of the United States.

Second, that if the United States ends up talking to an unsavory regime, that act, in and of itself, disenfranchises the local opposition and ensures the survival of the regime. Once Washington bestows legitimacy on the regime by talking to it, the internal opposition is left helpless and powerless.

Third, that the United States stands at the center of all political analyses. The United States is assumed to be -- contrary to all empirical evidence -- virtually omnipotent. All other actors are at best reacting to U.S. policy and thinking. There isn’t much distribution of power to speak of -- the United States holds (or should hold) most cards, and other states are left fighting for the bread crumbs that fall off Washington’s dinner table.

These assumptions invariably lead to Washington’s knee-jerk instinct to think that the U.S. government always has to do something. And that it is also responsible for almost all developments and outcomes. Taking a step back, observing developments, or showing patience are near treacherous acts according to this mind-set; hence the ferocious criticism of Obama’s handling of the Arab Spring.

As erroneous as this line of thinking is, it resonates strongly among large portions of the American public because it bestows on the United States a form of divine responsibility and strengthens the sense of American exceptionalism. (It is no coincidence that Obama has also been fiercely criticized for his remarks on the very phrase.) And it tends to win support among disgruntled exiled opposition groups as well because it provides them with an opportunity to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for independent leadership while putting additional responsibility on America’s shoulders.

Even the outcome in Libya ultimately shows that America’s ability to drive events in lands far away is limited at best. But shunning dialogue and diplomacy on the theory that we do our enemies a favor by talking to them only limits that influence further.

First published in

Trita Parsi is the 2010 Recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. He is the author of the forthcoming book, "A Single Role of the Dice -- Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" (Yale University Press 2012).


Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi
Anahid Hojjati

Thanks Vildemose jaan

by Anahid Hojjati on

I learned something. By the way, your last comment that had three points, was a good one. thanks.


 She is Mother

by vildemose on

 She is Mother Jones:

Mary Harris "Mother" Jones (August 1, 1837 – November 30, 1930), born in Cork, Ireland, was a prominent American labor and community organizer, who helped coordinate major strikes and co-founded the Industrial Workers of the World.

She worked as a teacher and dressmaker but after her husband and four children all died of yellow fever and her workshop was destroyed in a fire in 1871 she began working as an organizer for the Knights of Labor and the United Mine Workers union.

She was a very effective speaker, punctuating her speeches with stories, audience participation, humor and dramatic stunts. From 1897 (when she was 60) she was known as Mother Jones and in 1902 she was called "the most dangerous woman in America" for her success in organizing mine workers and their families against the mine owners. In 1903, upset about the lax enforcement of the child labor laws in the Pennsylvania mines and silk mills, she organized a Children's March from Philadelphia to the home of then president Theodore Roosevelt in New York.

The magazine Mother Jones, established in 1970, is named after her.


Reform requires the consent of the corrupt

Anahid Hojjati

no, vildemose jan. I don't know.

by Anahid Hojjati on

This is too small. It has to be bigger for me to know who he/she is.


 Anahid jan: LOL, do you

by vildemose on

 Anahid jan: LOL, do you know who it is???

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt

Anahid Hojjati

Important questions

by Anahid Hojjati on

who is that in Vildemose's new avatar and why Esfand is calling Faramarz a D-lister?

Esfand Aashena

Faramarz jaan you D-lister you! You and Kathy Griffin!

by Esfand Aashena on

Everything is sacred



by vildemose on

“I am a NIACie and I believe that it is useful to talk to the Regime representatives because the Regime is reformable and once the sanctions are lifted and money starts flowing and the fat cats are fed and Hamas and Hezbollah are paid, the bread crumbs will trickle down to the average Iranians and Basij, Sepah and Rahbar will be nicer and kinder to the protestors and a Grand Bargain with the US can take place and everyone will live happily ever after!”

See, that wasn’t too hard!


 MAK...(Mordam az khandeh). Aali bood. This is a comment by Parthian a few years ago: I think it still applies in response to the below article: //

"In the last 30 years, the economic situation has consistenly deteriorated, and although, several privatization plans were drawn up, none of the governments(reformers, conservatives) have truly and genuinely implemented these plans. Deep down IR knows that free market would mean their down fall, understanding this important fact, they will not allow the free market to take hold. Just as democracy is only practiced among the oligarchy, free market is only practiced at that level, and not below. IR wants a dependent population, that is how governments seize power, and create influence. We don't need the lifting of sanctions to have internal free market.

Fallacy 2: Sanctions only hurt ordinary, and poor Iranians (emotional appeal). None sense. All the important economic leverages are in the hands of the oligarchy. There is absolutely no evidence that sanctions would open up more opportunities for the ordinary poor Iranians. Here is a good example: With Oil revenues above 100 billion dollars annually, some 35 billion dollars has gone missing (according to IR's own accounting). Even cash (the simplest of economic tools) has not trickled

down. Iranians are poorer today than they were before the rapid rise of oil prices. As a matter of fact, Oligarchy has stolen more, invested more abroad i.e. in South Africa. What makes these folks so sure that lifting of sanctions wouldd somehow be allowed to trickle down to the most needy in Iran? If you believe in this, you have to believe in Reaganomics theory of trickle down. Absolutely nonsense!

Fallacy 3: sanctions give the regime excuse to blame foreigners (political appeal). So what people say here is that Iranian people are too stupid to recognize the real root cause of their problems. They know the system is rotten, the government is rotten, and run by a bunch of thieves, yet they would blame the U.S for their misery. I can see American goods being priced out of the market because of sanctions, how about the execution of teenagers? What does that have to do with sanctions? If Iranian people are too stupid to recognize the real root cause of their problems, American foreign policy should not change to correct that. American foreign policy, including its economic leverage is there to advance American interest, not to educate the Iranian masses..."  

Reform requires the consent of the corrupt


Faramarz, I love your 'Name Calling' comment

by Pari on

Faramarz, You said it so well! Thank you! NIAC claims they are a group of well-educated, young, vibrant, and well versed in the American politics that know so much better than the rest of us who really don't understand democracy and are not capable of conducting ourselves in a civilized manner. And yet they always reserve to name calling of anyone who dis-agrees with them or expose their lias. As you mentioned the NIAC's latest favorite label for people who criticize them is 'MEK' or even better 'MEK hidden agent', LOL.


Get Real, NIAC President-for-Life & IRI UN Ambassador Chum

by AMIR1973 on

What an "analysis" by the Good Doctor Parsi! Without assistance from the NATO states, the Libyan uprising would have been crushed by Qaddafi & Sons. It was already on the verge of defeat, with Qaddafi's forces taking one town after the other and even reaching the outskirts of Benghazi. It was only through NATO airstrikes on Qaddafi's forces, military and political assistance to the rebels, freezing of Qaddafi's assets, economic and political sanctions, and freezing out of the Qaddafi regime that the playing field was levelled between the regime and its opponents.


Framarz jaan

by Reality-Bites on

You can add one more name to that list of names made up by IR supporters to describe critics of the IR: "Fake Iranians".

As if those who support this regime, a regime whose very concept of existence is about undermining everything about the Iranian national identity in deference to its brand of fundamentalist Islam, are the "True Iranians".

As regards to Trita Parsi's article, in which his main point of contention seems to be that the best way forward is dialogue between the US and the Islamic Republic, well, as it's already been pointed out by some other posters, he seems to be either forgetting or deliberately disregarding the fact that the US, even under the Neocons which Parsi is still riling about, as well as the Obama administration, has offered direct dialogue with the Islamic Republic on several occasions and every time it has been rebuffed by the Mullahs.

The Islamic Republic is not interested in dialogue, because dialogue gets in the way of its long held strategy. And the IR strategy is the creation and maintaining of external enemies and threats. That way the IR distracts attention from the tyranny it is presiding over inside Iran. It is the same tactic the IR supporters adopt on IC: continuously talk about IR created external enemies and NEVER talk about IR's repression of the Iranian people.


Name Calling

by Faramarz on

In the good old days on this site, whenever somebody said something about the Regime and its treatment of the Iranian people, they were called Monarchist or Savaki. But that got old.

Then they were called the Iranian Exiles or Iran-hating Iranians by the likes of Sargord or Molla. But that passed too. Then came the Neo-con/Zionist/Likudist/AIPAC/Settler label which is still in use today. And lately, there is a new one; MEK de-lister!

Isn’t it easier for the NIACies to come out and say a few things about NIAC instead of labeling people?

Here, let me get the conversation started.

“I am a NIACie and I believe that it is useful to talk to the Regime representatives because the Regime is reformable and once the sanctions are lifted and money starts flowing and the fat cats are fed and Hamas and Hezbollah are paid, the bread crumbs will trickle down to the average Iranians and Basij, Sepah and Rahbar will be nicer and kinder to the protestors and a Grand Bargain with the US can take place and everyone will live happily ever after!”

See, that wasn’t too hard!

Artificial Intelligence

I wonder how many "retards" below are

by Artificial Intelligence on

Part of NIAC's internet response team.


Ramin J

by BoosBoos on

Ramin J

Are commentators on retards?

by Ramin J on

i am sorry for the harsh headline, but are folks here retards? I reread Parsi's article three times - it doesnt even seem to be about talking with the regime. He brings up a very interesting argument that LIBYA - not Iran - disproves the neo-con argument that talking to the enemy strengthens it. As evidence he puts forward the fact that Lieberman and McCain not only talked to Qaddafi last year, they even tried to forge an alliance with him.

But the Libyan people are masters of their own destiny and they kicked out that pot-smoking nutcase. So talking to or ignoring Qaddafi was irrelevant, what was relevant was the will of the Libyan people. 

You can agree or disagree with this. But for the love of God, present an argumen, not an insult if you wish to argue/comment. 

And dont be so retarded as to think that this is an article in favor of the regime, this is an article in favor of the people and it shows that the people of Iran are MORE important the US government. 

Fortunately, the people of Iran are smart and sophisticated. I wish the same could be said about the comment section at, which seems to get worse by the day...


You would be surprised (or maybe not) ...

by BoosBoos on

" by Mohammad Alireza on So I'm wondering how many of those that just beat up Trita Parsi are Zionists? "   //   


Trita what are you smoking, the people?????????

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

The Labia penetration was US based imperialism all the way!

Now read this



Mohammad Alireza

Chera mizzani?

by Mohammad Alireza on

It feels like I've walked into a side street and just witnessed a gang beating up Trita Parsi.

The presumption of all the below posters seems to be that any attempt to resolve differences between America and IRI are to be rejected because those in power in Iran are………(fill in your own "fosh", or expletive).

Left out in Trita Parsi's article is that the central reason America and the IRI keep failing to reach any kind of resolution is because the Israeli Lobby keeps sabotaging all attempts to reach out and resolve problems.

So I'm wondering how many of those that just beat up Trita Parsi are Zionists? -- which is very different to being an Israeli, or Jewish American, or Jewish Iranian. In case you haven't been paying attention Zionists are those that have established apartheid in Israel/Palestine and often behave like the Gestapo.

Personally I think the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with Iranians and it's best to leave them alone to solve their own problems. However, if Zionists constantly threaten military action against Iran and use their very powerful lobby to get Washington to attack Iran then this is a problem that all Iranians need to face and put a stop to.

As far as Washington talking to Iran is concerned, I think we all agree that it is far better to talk then to do drop bombs. And if Trita Parsi is working on dialogue as opposed to war he has my full support.

Mohammad Alireza


Dear Shazde,

by AMIR1973 on

you need to understand the Tudeh Party mentality.   That's an intriguing comment. What exactly do you mean? Do you mean a mentality of blind anti-Americanism or something else? If possible, please expand on this. I'm interested to hear your opinion. Regards.

Shazde Asdola Mirza

To understand Parsi et al ...

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on

... you need to understand the Tudeh Party mentality.

Artificial Intelligence

Who do you think you are trying to fool Trita?

by Artificial Intelligence on

The IRI Supporter Parsi states:

"More than anything, Libya -- and the Arab Spring as a whole -- is
showing the limited influence of the United States when compared to the
power of the people in the region when they take charge of their own

"power of the people"?

Don't you remember the Gadaffi's forces being on the outskirts of Bengazi declaring that they would be done in a matter of hours when NATO finally intervened and bombed the hell out of the Libyan forces?

America has already spent a BILLION dollars supporting the Libyan NATO operation. Had it not been for WESTERN/USA intervention, the Libyan revolution would have been a total failure. Obama just stayed on the side lines because he did not want to make it appear that the US was getting involved again.....But at the end, it was the US that spend the money

What about Egypt? It was the Americans who forced out Mubarak.....

As Libya did, Syria and ultimately Iran will need some type of outside intervention to assist the People you are referring to. 

Now go support the IRI. 



Here comes Parsi's 2 cents again...

by Pari on

I agree with most everyone here that Parsi is totally  (and perhaps intentionally) wrong in his analysis here.  Once again, he goes round and round coming back to the VERY SAME ARGUEMENT that US needs to talk to IRI and remove the sanctions.  This story is really really getting old Parsi!  We understand you have a job to do and you're doing it but people are NOT buying it anymore!  Not that I think you care!!!   Some of us have taken the time to look at the plenty of ducments showing how you are lobbying for IRI but those Iranian-Americans and Americans that you have managed to fool by your lias will see your true picture very very soon!


Dr. Parsi, You Are Completely Off in Your Analysis

by ayatoilet1 on

The conclusion is fine, yes in the end its all comes down to the the long-run the People will triumph. Okay, so what is new?

My issue is with your analysis, and I really think on some issues (or facts you are completely wrong. Here I go, point by point:

1) Condolezza Rice made a very direct offer to the administration in Iran for a dialogue. It was rejected by you know who... So this nonsense about Bush not wanting dialogue is absolutely incorrect. There were times, and there were some on his staff (which by the way DID NOT INCLUDE COLIN POWELL) that did not support dialogue...but they (the Bush Administration) did in the end make an offer.

2) The Obama adminstrtation has basically done the same (made an offer for dialogue) and been rejected too. In fact, then Senator Biden (prior to coming to power) had private meetings with the reformists and even former President Khatami in places like back rooms in Davos etc. and no progress was made with it, because of you know who ...

3) Yes, Condoleeza Rice did meet Ghadafi. And it turns out he had a crush on her, and kept a private photo album by his bed side of her photographs. (That must be really flatering for her...). But, your analysis about the "people wining out" is incorrect. Nothing would have been accomplished in Libya without Air support from Nato. It took a fairly gutsy move on Hillary's part to push for the "change". Ghadafi's gang actually went arround europe bribing everyone ...Italians etc. with Billions in hard cash and almost bought more time, but in the end it really was NOT Sarkozy but Hillary that made the critical decision to push for change. (She could not or would not get bribed). And by the way, since I live near DC, I can tell you from first hand state department accounts that Hillary had observed how the Europeans had leveraged US resources in many places like Iraq and Central Asia (where the Americans did the heavy lifting only to find that major resource allocations end up going to BP, Shell etc.) and Hillary actually pushed for the Europeans to pay the price tag this time. She was exceedingly effective in her policy making, and executed briliantly. Someone like Bush would have dived right into it like a Bull in a China shop. Sarkozy became a "tool" in this instance...not the champion he claims he is. Americans will no longer spend a trillion dollars to have the Brits grab all the prizes.

4) The situation with Iran is completely different to the analogies you provide. There is a fundamental fact that the West and in fact the reformists faction in Iran simply do not realize. The West believes alliances are built upon common interests. The people that matter in the regime in Iran: Khatami, IRGC gang etc. believe alliances are built upon common beliefs...around common values. They fundamentally do NOT trust the West, and see them as fickle friends who would basically sc**w each other's wives if it was in their interests to do so. Until there is a commonality of "beliefs" there can be no fundamental alliance...interests or not. They don't see sanctions as a violation of their interests, they see sanctions as an opportunity to identify weaknesses, and strengthen the country by creating more self-sufficiency (read the story about Carbon Fiber in the news section today on this website). They are willing to sacrifice today, in order to protect their beliefs. There is absolutely no common basis for talks...for dialogue. Its simply is (and was) wishfull thinking on the side of reformists in Iran and diplomats in the West.

5) You completely discount the role of the Brits in all this. The Brits have maintained their influence inside Iran, and absolutely do not wish for any sort of real opening between Iran and US. An isolated, and besieged Iran is perfect for them - that continues to put pressure on the U.S. and Israel. They are very wily strategists and are carefully manipulating the situation. For one, Britain is extracting 3 Mn Barrels of oil a day from Iranian portions of the Caspian Sea, an emboldened Iran would put immediate pressure on something like $30 Bn of British investment into Caspian Sea infrastructure, and basically something like 25% of Britain GDP that is now coming from the Caspian Sea. To add to this, BP and Shell have the two largest concessions in Iraq, and will soon be building a pipeline straight through Iran to ship out Oil from Iraq...they don't want the "Americans" to mess with all this. In the end, the Europeans are calculating that the more American reputation is marred in the middle east the better it will be for them in the long run.

6) The regime in Iran is insecure, ruthless and covered with blood. In essence they do not want a change. Status quo for now, plays well into their hands. There is no REAL incentive to change. They know how to put down rebellion and they want this to play out over many decades. They think on completely different time frames to US politicians. Although bloody and ruthless they are also very cunning and shrewd. They have also been battle tested with the Iran-Iraq war. Do not underestimate them, they have properly calculated their position vis-a-vis U.S. and they fundamentally do NOT want relations. It plays badly into their regional anti-Israel strategy (ie. it affects their credibility). It will affect current monopolies they have established with suppliers to suddenly have new US based suppliers show up into their markets (remember through the bonyads etc they control 70% of Iran's economy). And they fundamentally do not think they can trust any US overture, since every 4 or 8 years administrations change....US is a fundamentally unreliable partner. They have also witnessed first hand U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war (leading to millions of deaths) and then his toppling. And when it comes to partnership, they don't see it as a mating of interests, they see it as a mating of values (a core "friendship"). US is a very poor friend... or a friend they do not understand, they have trouble understanding the dynamics of US democracy. It is a fact...

(Don't get me wrong, I believe Americans are very decent, and are among the most charitable and generous people in the World ... and US can be a good partner if you understand American democracy ....I am simply talking about their point of view...).

The strategy of getting the two sides to talk, is a patently bankrupt idea of both the reformists camp in Iran and also the diplomats in the West. The regime in Iran, the Brits, The Russians, the Chinese ...all of Iran's trading partners and the Iranians, want a continuation of sanctions with the US, and US at an arms length. And there is NO reason (on their side) to change things.

Dr. Parsi, grand winner of all these Prizes, President for life of the NIAC, oh the alminghty one ... can you stop pushing a bankrupt strategy? Its getting old.

Now, I believe in constructive criticism, so let me finish by sharing with you what it will actually take for the situation to change vis-a-vis US and for the Iranian people.

1) For thirty years groups like NIAC and the MEK/MKO/PMOI have been getting funded by enemies of the people of Iran, and pretending to be the real opposition - and the people inside and outside Iran need to reject these bankrupt groups with false strategies. There has to be a wholesale rejection of these groups.

2) People like Karroubi and Moussavi are puppets - different faces of the same regime. We can not and should not also trust another Ayatollah or a former IRI Prime Minister who was in charge while literally thousands of Iranians were executed as legitimate leaders too.

3) It seems to me, that the arrangement in Libya was not so bad. If the U.S. is willing to provide air cover, I know the people of Iran will immediately pour into the streets - even pour into the country from abroad ...and take over the governance of the country. All we need is a real, legitimate, honest "transitional" leadership team that can run the place until a new set of elections are undertaken. The U.S. needs to focus on getting this team together, and identifying targets to bomb. AND it must do so, with minimum threat that the country will splinter.... and not for God's sake get the Rajavi's, Parsi's, etc etc. involved. We need real, solid leadership to guide the country through its transitions.

Parsi, can you now get a real job and stop Milking NIAC donors, and pretending you represent Iranians in America. This game has to stop. There is no basis for dialogue - period. We (Iranians), as President Obama declared, need "Change we can believe in".

G. Rahmanian

But Faramarz,

by G. Rahmanian on

Is Trita Parsi blind? Didn't he see what the regime did two summers ago? Let's not even talk about the previous thirty years! How shameless can the man get? I did enjoy reading your comment, by the way.



by Faramarz on

I am trying very hard to understand people like him.

He hasn't lived in Iran and he doesn't have a good understanding of Basiji and Sepahi. But he definitely has a dislike of the West. He did his PHD under the Neocon Fukuyama. Maybe that's when everything fell out of whack! 

He thinks that by lifting the sanctions and appeasing the Regime, somehow a better situation for the Iranians will appear.

He is dead wrong!




by shushtari on

i agree with  you completely.

what is ALWAYS missing from parsi's 'articles' is any criticism of the mullahs and their 32 years of crimes against iran and it's wonderful people.

parsi, and the rest of his 'lobbyists' in washington may think they are fooling the world by putting lipstick on a pig by trying to blame everything on the west, while never, ever mentioning anything against the mullahs- but they have sorely mistaken.


I've met this idiot, and he's a slick carsalesman- but make no mistake, he is definitely part of the rank and file of the mullahs. 


Where is the 'Beef?'

by Tavana on

Mr. Parsi is neither Arab nor Iranian. He left Iran when he was only 4 years-old and has never lived in any Arab country anytime. He is also as Muslim as his majesty president Obama is! He thus does not have any qualifications whatsoever to write about the events in Libya. One must be first Iraqi and have had lived for the past 10 years under American/Israeli occupation to talk about the imposed 'Arab Spring???' there. One also must be Libian first and have had lived under Kadafi's rule for at least a few years to talk about him & to tell the world that what is happening in that country now is by anything but by the 'Peple Power.' It is rather by the $$$$ from extremely corrupt Gulf States leaders along with the non-stop NATO warplanes @ work to install a Noori Maleki/Chalabi type government in Libya to exploit its vast oil resources. The so-called 'People,' and especially of Africans/Arabs races, never mattered in Iraq before as they do not matter in Libya or Syria now.

Get a Life Tri-ta!

G. Rahmanian

Despicable Trita Parsi!

by G. Rahmanian on

Shame On You, Trita Parsi! Your hypocrisy and shameless indifference towards atrocities committed by the regim against Iranians have reached new heights. Shame On You, Trita Parsi!


To the Baron

by AMIR1973 on

Ever wonder why puny little North Korea is never touched but this 180-million strong, nuclear armed Pakistan is attacked with impunity?  It's because the leadership of North Korea is not compromised, and the leadership of Pakistan is deeply compromised.

Seoul, South Korea is located a close distance to the North Korea border and therefore within easy range of North Korean artillery, that's why. But I do like how you seem to implicitly endorse the "uncompromising" nature of the Stalinist hereditary North Korean "republic" (hereditary in the sense that leadership is passed from father to son to grandson -- how nice). I suppose South Korea, which has become a leading industrialized democracy with the assistance of the U.S., has a "deeply compromised" leadership since it has aligned itself with the U.S. and allows the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops.


To Trita Parsi / NIAC

by BoosBoos on


I want to have a chat with you about the phenomenon of people on this site being permitted to falsely accuse others (without any personal knowledge whatsoever) of being an employee or agent of the IRI and then advocating that people in that category be killed.  I've never taken $1 from the government of Iran (any government of Iran).  

Please message me privately and take a minute to read the article below and feel welcome to refer the complaint to the F.B.I. in addition to the same threats you have received.    




by BaronAvak on

That's because Pakistan's military and political leadership are bought off by Western intelligence agencies.  If it had an independent command and control structure that was not compromised, they would of course not tolerate such attacks.  Ever wonder why puny little North Korea is never touched but this 180-million strong, nuclear armed Pakistan is attacked with impunity?  It's because the leadership of North Korea is not compromised, and the leadership of Pakistan is deeply compromised.