By: Omid Biniaz

National Iranian American Council (NIAC) on their web site has announced that it has “taken legal action against proponents of US-Iran war who have waged a defamation campaign against NIAC”. Of course as is usually the case with NIAC, the truth is between lines. By legal action, NIAC is referring to a letter written by their own lawyer to Voice of America-TV (VOA). This tactic, commonly known as “cease and desist letter” is typically not the first step in a legal action but an alternative to taking a legal action, aimed to intimidate. NIAC in the same statement has also braged about having forced VOA to cancel further scheduled broadcasts. If this is indeed true, this is a shocking retreat by the Voice of America-TV that brings disgrace to the free media and discredits the United States in its strive to advance democracy and freedom of the speech in IRAN.

Unquestionably NIAC and Mr. Trita Parsi must be given adequate opportunity on the same program on VOA to challenge Mr. Daioleslam. However, NIAC and Mr. Parsi can not use bullying and intimidating tactics to silence VOA or any one else that questions their motives and operation. In fact, lets listen to Mr. Trita Parsi himself when he so fiercely lectured us about the right of Kamal Kharazi, the mullah’s foreign minister to talk in UCLA without interruption by human rights activists:

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that cannot be denied to anyone-including a person accused of violating other people’s human rights or guilty of representing a government that continues to show inadequate respect for these rights. This is a fundamental principle, as a tit-for-tat approach to Human Rights ultimately belies and undermines the very idea of these rights…..Articulated reasoning, based on sound logic, when put forth firmly and unequivocally, yet without resorting to intimidation and disruption, are likely to achieve the objectives of Human Rights much more effectively than noisy demonstrations. Indeed, threatening and disruptive behavior is essentially inconsistent with the embrace of Human Rights values and principles. Dialogue and respect for the rights of others to express their views- however unpopular, constitute the very foundation of a society that is respectful of human rights…..We need to implement and nurture a culture of mutual respect and dialogue, and, once and for all, turn our backs on intimidation, verbal aggression and intolerance. We strongly believe that, today, this is a pivotal issue in Iran as well as among Iranians living outside of Iran, and we call for a wide exchange of ideas on the topic.”

In conclusion, I have one advice for the Voice of America, Mr. Daioleslam and Mr. Trita Parsi. Let NIAC proceed to a real legal action. Iranians would welcome the opportunity to hear Mr. Parsi, under oath, explain his relation with Tehran and a potpourri of felons close to them.

http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=744&Itemid=59

Among the flaws in this study are its size (far too small to represent mainstream), an inherently biased population, a blatantly undemocratic environment in which the Iranian poll was taken, a lack of verified respondents in all three (who they are, how they answered, how selected, how qualified as random, &c), limitations on questions that can be asked in Iran, &c. The study uses two polls presented to Americans as a type of ‘control’ used to show the Iranian data is at least plausible. It does nothing of the sort, and is only useful for proving a negative (i.e., can only prove data is corrupt, not that data is valid).

This study can only be said to show differences between a particular subset of Americans and Iranians of completely unknown composition. KNF’s methodology purports to be a random sampling of Americans, but gives us nothing supporting such randomness exists. Regardless of randomness, the two American studies (1004 to 1326 respondents) are much too small for representing a population of 300-million. Even assuming it is random, it is easy to show this sample size is more likely to represent a faction than mainstream opinion. Nor can the two be combined to provide a better sample size as the questions posed are not identical or use the same methodology.

The KNF method of choosing American ‘panelists’ guarantees a particular type of respondent who are anything but mainstream and likely to share certain ‘globalist’ and ‘internationalist’ inclinations (as is well reflected in the questionnaire responses). We can tell from other sources (elections, media concerns, polls, blogs, &c) that mainstream opinion is not this globalist/internationalist nor monolithic; and know it should show a larger component of protectionist and us versus them mentality. I will qualify this by noting, public opinion often differs from private opinion; with public expression tending to repeat media opinion more than reveal true sentiment. A better poll will not exploit this tendency, but, rather, frame questions less blatantly as to elicit a PC response. This methodology does not exclude an opposite or broader demographic, but it certainly favors a narrow one. On the Iranian side, the poll is either the opinion of carefully vetted Iranians or that of Iran’s ruling elite; which makes it pretty useless.

All of these flaws may be seen as “shady” by those of us who hold a different opinion, but do not make them dishonest unless deliberate. Knowing, as we do, the type of people who conduct these studies and their strong belief that ‘they are’ the mainstream, it is more probable they used criteria they see as ‘representative’ which aren’t.

- Bob Stapler