Hey NIAC- What’s with “Even” Eric Cantor-UPDATE

There’s something a littly icky — okay, more than a little icky — about the qualifier in the following, chronicling Republican voices that have expressed support for disenfranchised Iranians:

Senator John McCain spoke passionately from the floor of the US Senate, saying:

"The United States of America must, and this body must, affirm our support for fundamental human rights of the Iranian people who are being beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran and other cities around Iran. We are with them."

Republican Mike Pence of Indiana said:

"We are bound to support the courageous and decent people in Iran who are struggling for their rights and their freedom."

And even Minority Whip Eric Cantor spoke up, saying:

"We must rally the world around the cause of the Iranian people."

These excerpts are part of a blog post by Patrick Disney, of the National Iranian American Council, at the Huffington Post. His point is that, if these folks really care about the Iranians, the last thing they should do is heed AIPAC and sanction the regime.

I’ll get to that, but first the ickiness: What’s with the "even"? Because Cantor is Republican leadership? But McCain was last year’s presidential candidate. Because Cantor is a conservative? But so is Pence, but moreso. Because Cantor is a star on the AIPAC circuit? So are McCain and Pence.

So what, exactly, is it with the "even"?

Now to Disney’s broader point:

Even if the sanctions were effective in harming the Iranian economy, there isn’t a single historical example of economic sanctions translating into a desirable change in the Iranian government’s behavior.

The recalcitrance of the Mullahs, as I’ve pointed out, is hardly the point: There are plenty of cases of governments resisting sanctions until they crack — or not. South Africa grew worse as sanctions intensified — and then ended Apartheid. Milosevic resisted sanctions — and went to war before he cracked. So of couse, sanctions are a risk, and we must be cognizant of the risk before endorsing them — but making an issue of whether or not they score incremental successes is a sideshow.

More here:

What better way to show our support than by casting the common man into financial ruin? Think about who suffers the most in the US when gas prices rise due to shocks–it’s the poor. Why would it be any different in Iran? Certainly the elite won’t suffer the brunt of these sanctions–the Revolutionary Guards have been getting rich off smuggling sanctioned goods into the country for years. And with Russia and China ready to provide anything the US won’t sell to Iran, the mullahs will surely find a way to fill their gas tanks. So that will just leave the poor and middle class to suffer.

Some of the existing and proposed sanctions target do indeed the elites. They name individuals and companies. Other proposed sanctions are broader, it’s true, for instance targeting Iran’s central bank. You’d think Disney might mention this.

But the issue of the "common man" (where did this guy learn to write, the Comintern?) bears examination, and from both sides. It’s true that AIPAC promiscuously endorses sanctions and NIAC promiscuously rejects them, and that neither player (nor their allies) provides critical information: Are they consulting with indigenous groups? The sanctions worked in South Africa because their authors consulted with the leaders of the anti-Apartheid movement. Strictures on dealing with the old Soviet Union and its satellites were formulated in consultation with nascent democracy movements. Is NIAC sure the "common man" does not favor some sanctions? Is AIPAC positive that the "little guy" (I like it better than "common man") will not be infuriated by some sanctions?

And it’s true, AIPAC’s regional client is Israel, but that doesn’t absolve it of dealing with the Iranian in the street (hey, how many cliches have I missed? There’s average Joe…). As Disney points out, backing for Iran’s nuclear project is pretty much wall-to-wall in Iran; should this regime (God willing) be removed, do we really want in its place moderates bearing a grudge against Israel and its defenders because of ill-considered sanctions?

Finally to a discourse confusion that’s been bugging me: Love AIPAC or hate it, its donors throw their money away. I mean, for good reason as far as they’re concerned, but still. Giving money to AIPAC may earn them lots of naches, but they never see a dollar return — it’s not like AIPAC pays out dividends. Money that goes to AIPAC directly (as opposed to its educational affiliate) doesn’t even get them back tax dollars. They give because they believe.

Is the same true of NIAC? Do members of its board have vested interests in not sanctioning Iran? Have they business dealings there? If they do, this would not at all delegitimate their arguments against sanctions — petitioning government to pursue business without fetters is older than the Constitution  — but you’d think this kind of disclosure would be par for the course, especially at the HuffPo.

UPDATE: A reader who doesn’t want to embarrass me (so I get to embarrass myself!) points out that Disney’s piece specifically targets the "crippling sanctions" in the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which AIPAC and other groups are pressing to pass, and does not address lesser and prior sanctions.

This is true, and I should have pointed it out. However, what exercised me particularly was his contention that existing sanctions have yet to work — and pointing out that this may be so, but that does not in itself delegitmate the sanctions, is fair, I think.

The other point is that, broadly, NIAC has yet to say what sanctions, if any, it supports. In fact, here’s its director, Trita Parsi, testifying in Congress in March:

At the same time, no other group of Americans [referring to Iranian Americans] has visited Iran in the numbers that Iranian Americans have and with each visit, we bear witness to the effects of economic sanctions on the Iranian economy, on the Iranian people and on the Iranian government. Though mostly anecdotal, their observations are instrumental into understanding why U.S. sanction policies have failed to reach their objectives, why further sanctions will likely make little difference, and how the dynamics of Iranian society and Iran’s political system can be better utilized to bring about a change in Iranian behavior.

My friend also led me to read Disney’s piece again, and now I’m exercised again (the dangers of getting bloggers to go back into their work!) Here’s Disney’s In Yo Face conclusion:

So despite all their lip-service, it seems that Congress’ priorities haven’t changed. They are planning to continue the same failed approach to Iran of the last three decades. To them, these petroleum sanctions made sense before Iran’s election, and miraculously, they are still our best option after the election.

And how exactly has NIAC changed since the election, beyond lip service?