E-mail a friendTrita Parsi
airdate June 22, 2009
An expert on U.S.-Iranian relations, Trita Parsi is founder-president of the National Iranian American Council. He's also author of the award-winning book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. Trita was born in Iran, and was four years old when his family moved to Sweden to escape political repression. As an adult, he moved to the U.S., where he received his Ph.D. in international relations. He previously worked for the Swedish Permanent Mission to the U.N. in New York.
National Iranian Council president says that President Obama has done the right thing in not taking sides in the Iranian tensions. (1:49)
Full interview. (8:21)
Trita Parsi
Tavis: Trita Parsi is the founder and president of the National Iranian-American Council. At the age of four he and his family fled Iran to escape political repression. He's also the author of the book "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States." He joins us tonight from Washington. Trita, nice to have you on the program.
Trita Parsi: Thank you for having me.
Tavis: This is the story that doesn't seem to end, yes?
Parsi: Absolutely. It just keeps on going and it keeps on surprising.
Tavis: Surprising you in what ways today, specifically?
Parsi: Well, because there's so many things happening that you would never have expected. You would have deemed it impossible only 12 days ago. But then every day, things are happening that you never thought would happen.
For instance, the fact that so many people went out and protested in spite of the very stern warning from the ayatollah - Ayatollah Khamenei on Friday. It was a tremendous indication that fear has been lost and that the authority of the supreme leader is now being put under question.
Tavis: And yet while his authority may be put under question, the revolutionary guard has made it very clear that for those who continue to protest they will be met with tear gas, yes?
Parsi: Yes, but at the same time by now I don't think psychologically it is as important for the demonstrators to continue to go out on the streets and demonstrate because they've already proven their point. They've proven the fact that they are not backing down and that they're not fearing the repression and the brutality that the revolutionary guard and the Basij are subjecting them to.
At this stage if they were to, for instance, change their tactics and instead of manifesting their defiance and their opposition to what has happened through street demonstrations but instead doing it through strikes, et cetera. It would still have a very strong effect and it would still in no way be an indication that they're backing down.
Tavis: What reason to believe - what reason is there, I should say, to believe that if they change their tactics the government will change its tactics? You can take to the streets and strike or stay home and strike, and yet that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a crackdown.
Parsi: Because this is the dynamics of the conflict. At various points, tactically, very, very strongly opposing sides may actually have a common interest. And right now, the level of escalation, the level of violence, the level of killings have reached a level that is to the disadvantage of both sides.
For every additional brutal killing or beating of a demonstrator you end up in a situation in which both sides become more radicalized. They become further away from each other, which makes it so much more difficult to find a compromise at the end of it.
Tavis: So if they were to change strategies, tell me how that leads to what they ultimately want, which is for there to be a new round of elections, given the fact that the demonstrators, the protestors, do not accept the outcome as it has been told to the rest of the world.
Parsi: Well, I think part of the reason why this has gone as far as it has is precisely because of the lack of willingness on behalf of Khamenei and the Ahmadinejad camp to compromise. If there had been compromise from the outset, we would not have seen what we've seen on our screens now for the last couple of days.
And I think at the end of it, even if they were to change tactics, change strategies and go towards strikes, it would still be very crippling for the current government. And they have already proven their ability and their willingness, if need be, to take it to the streets.
Tavis: So what would a compromise, to use the word that you used a moment ago, on these elections, given that there are millions who think they were robbed, what would a compromise look like right about now?
Parsi: Well, I think today the news that the Guardian Council has agreed or has essentially announced that they did find fraud or at least some irregularities in at least 50 cities out of 350 in which you had more than 100 percent participation. Maybe a small opening in which they are opening the path to be able to say look, there were some problems; perhaps there can be a second round.
Not necessarily a reelection, which would be to give in to the demands of the opposition, but rather saying there needs to be a second round just to make sure that we get a final tally of what the position is between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi.
It's still very difficult to see it but then again, as I said earlier on, we've seen things on a daily basis that have surprised us so why should we be surprised by future surprises?
Tavis: And why should Moussavi even accept that if that were the offer, if it turns out to be that they'll do a second round, which still, all things considered, not put him in the lead, not swing this in his way. Why should he or his supporters accept that kind of would-be potential compromise?
Parsi: Because the entire Iranian political system is based on compromise. The entire culture is based on compromise. And there is a clear awareness on both sides that they both need to give the other side a face-saving way out. If there is a reelection or if there is a second round, and if Moussavi is confident he actually won the first round, he should have few reasons to fear having a second round - at least if there is significant monitoring so that this time around they can be confident that no irregularities will take place.
Tavis: What's your read on how the Obama administration has handled this to date?
Parsi: I think the Obama administration has actually handled this very well so far. I think it's very important to make sure that the United States does not get itself involved in such a manner that it gives the impression to the larger Iranian population that this is not a homegrown uprising, that this is not something that's started by the Iranians themselves but rather that is being orchestrated from the outside.
There's a tremendous sensitivity amongst Iranians to the idea that they're being manipulated and driven by elements on the outside. So I think the president has been very wise not taking sides, not getting himself involved in that. But at the same time I do believe that a more clear and strong condemnation of the violence and the brutality that the police have shown, that the government has shown against the people, is needed. I'm missing the word "condemn" when I'm listening to the president.
Tavis: You have any reason to believe that his language would get stronger in the coming days if the protestors continue to take to the streets and they're met with the same kind of violence? Do you have any reason to believe that that language would get more tough?
Parsi: I have reasons to believe that it will get a little bit stronger. We've seen, actually, that it has grown gradually stronger over the last couple of days. Whether the president will choose to go as far as to condemn or not I am not sure of, but personally I would have to say, and particularly after having spoken to people inside of Iran, who actually are very, very happy that the president has not gotten himself involved - they're supportive of the position that the president should not take sides or make America an issue in this.
There's still a little bit of a surprise as to why the violence has not been condemned - not just criticized, but condemned.
Tavis: It's been fascinating for some of us to watch the role that technology, namely things like Twitter, the role that technology has played in organizing these protests.
Parsi: It's quite fascinating. I would have to say, though, that more than anything else, what is taking place on the streets when it comes to being able to organize and get information out quickly to people that are outside, on the streets, is actually text messaging that has been the dominant technology that has been used. And it's one of the things that the Iranian government very quickly closed down. There's been times at which they have opened it up for just a couple of hours, which may have been to be able to see who was texting, who is actually leading and organizing it, in order for them to be able to track down the leaders of this.
What is most fascinating, I would have to say, that much of the protests are actually quite leaderless because the Iranian government has already arrested or put under house arrest most of the leaders of the opposition. And as a result, they have a tremendous difficulty communicating with each other or with their followers.
And under those circumstances it's very, very difficult, of course, to devise a real plan of action.
Tavis: Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council. Nice to have you on; thanks for sharing your insights.
Parsi: Thank you for having me.
Tavis: It's my pleasure.
Back to June 22, 2009