Hats off to Trita Parsi and his colleague Reza Marashi, who have blocked us as followers of their Twitter accounts. By doing so, they gave us a huge complement – that this young blog’s in the right direction.
It’s their prerogative, of course, but a shame nonetheless. We had sincerely hoped they would demonstrate a reasonable level of openness to other ways of looking at the Iranian crisis. So much for a free exchange of ideas.
Their view, incidentally, strongly contrasts with the more positive approach of Yousaf Butt, who forwarded a comment to a recent post of ours. Appreciate it.
Back to Trita Parsi: This isn’t the first time he’s taken concrete action to oppose differing views. As we reported, last year he lost an attempt to sue a US-based Iranian journalist for calling him and his group “key players in the lobby enterprise of Tehran’s ayatollahs in the United States.” The presiding judge basically called him a “moderately intelligent agent for the Iranian regime.” Last month, a DC court ordered Parsi to cough up $183,480,09 for the benefit of the journalist he sued. Thus a four-year legal saga – full of practical and symbolic meaning, in the context of Iran’s advocacy in the US public sphere – comes to a close.
Till next time.
What’s truly extraordinary about this case is that nobody in the mainstream media – certainly not in the Trita Parsi fan club – thought his legal defeats were newsworthy. Not Al-Monitor’s Barbara Slavin. Not the BBC’s Lyse Doucet. Not his co-signatories to the latest Atlantic Council report– neither the ubiquitous Thomas Pickering, nor Ploughshares’ Joseph Cirincione.
Time for more objectivity regarding Trita Parsi. The courts have spoken.