The White House has invited a panel of experts to discuss Iran and how to effectively go about a regime change inside Iran. One of those experts is Amir Taheri. Taheri is now known for his report that a bill was proposed in Iran that would require all non-Muslims to wear badges. The story was quickly deemed false and now Taheri’s credibility is in the gutter with some.

It’s easy to remember Taheri’s latest story and listen to Jews inside Iran claim the story was not accurate, it does throw a major credibility problem Taheri’s way, but the calls that Taheri’s invite to the White House is laughable are not quite accurate either. Taheri has been and remains one of the anti-Iranian regime leaders throughout the world.

But back to the Iranian badges story. After all, that’s the one story that has some in a tiff over Taheri’s invite to the White House. There is a bill circulating, or at least was as of a week ago, in the Iranian Parliament that would implement an Islamic dress code. Based upon the excerpts provided by the Associated Press, there is no mention of any badges.

It should shock no one that Ahmadinejad has at least a little animosity towards Jews, but Ahmadinejad has also been quoted saying he wants to stop Christianity in Iran. Animosity aside, would the Supreme Leader of Iran implement such a law? There would have to be a basis behind such a law requiring non-Muslims to wear badges for Khomeni to accept such a law and justify it by Sharia or whatever other term he wishes to throw out. Actually, there is such a precedent.

Taheri continues to stand by his story and provides more historical reasoning that badges identifying non-Muslims have been used in Iran before being banned in 1908. Taheri also notes that the Iranian regime has yet to come out and say the story is false. A Jewish Iranian MP, Maurice Motammed, called the story false and said no such law was even being discussed.

For all reactions there must be at least a shred of logic behind them. Something has to crank the wheels, right? In that tune, if there isn’t a shred of credibility to the badges why would a spokesman for Iranian Jews thank the world’s reaction? Saying the report was likely a trial balloon, Sam Kermanian says the story might not be over.

“I am not sure if we have the whole picture. The person who originally reported this, Amir Taheri, is someone with fantastic credibility. In my heart, I think there must have been something that triggered this,” Mr. Kermanian said.

We clearly don’t have the full picture of what goes on inside Iran, and isn’t that the exact reason why the White House has invited people to discuss Iran? Taheri has written extensively in the past concerning Iran’s nuclear program, a program that was deemed farcical yet his reporting remains solid to this day. Taheri has covered the mass riots and protests we have seen all this week and last inside Iran’s universities while no one else seems to get the story. Covering the protests, Taheri has written why Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs don’t have full control over the nation of Iran, giving those who are unaware of the intracacies inside Iran a better understanding, but most importantly, the story is accurate.

That hasn’t stopped some people from asserting that Taheri is full of it. A blog named Lenin’s Tomb (the name should give it away) calls a few items into question that Taheri has written. Lenin states that Taheri’s interpretation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush is to “provoke a clash of civilizations so that the Hidden Imam would return.” We’ve written extensively on the Twelth Imam and Ahmadinejad’s profound beliefs in this day of reckoning healer before so I will not do so again here. But if one were to actually read the letter written by Ahmadinejad they would notice that the supposed ‘cure’ for the entire Iranian nuclear program is if President Bush would just revert to Islam. Don’t just take my word for it. Read the full text yourself, or you can read what Ahmadinejad said of his letter himself. With all due respect, Lenin seems not to actually know what the Twelth Imam is or that Ahmadinejad’s desire to pave the path for the Twelth Imam is as high as it is so I’m not going to try to debate that exact argument of Lenin’s.

But here’s where Lenin shows his true colors in terms of not exactly understanding radical Islam.

He has claimed that attacks on London and New York were inspired by a desire by some Muslims to exert total dictatorial control over what you eat for breakfast (which is cartoonish nonsense), referred to Tariq Ramadan as a Muslim Brotherhood militant (which is flatly false), smeared antiwar protesters as defenders of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and asserted that Israel must claim victory over Palestine. As an “Iranian-born analyst” (they never forget to mention this), he is the neoconservative’s favourite ‘native informant’ about Islam, the Middle East and how well various imperialist adventures are going. Commentary Magazine loves him, the Wall Street Journal loves him, the Telegraph loves him, the National Review loves him - to put it mildly, his brand of ‘insight’ is very popular with that baroque sodality of reactionary imperialists.

Yes, those who oppose radical Islam are just imperialist and Lenin’s dear namesake never believed in imperialism. Sarcasm aside, what Lenin calls “cartoonish nonsense” isn’t exactly the next creation coming to a television set in your home on Saturday morning. Using Lenin’s phrase of “some Muslims” we must derive that means the radical ones and the ones that actually do want to establish, or re-establish if you prefer, a Caliphate state. I don’t disagree that the word ’some’ is appropriate. Some of those even want a global Caliphate that would be under Sharia Law. But all radical Islamists want Sharia Law to govern their own lands. What would Sharia Law dictate could not be eaten at breakfast that at least many Americans enjoy? Oh, bacon.

While I was unable to find the Taheri piece Lenin mentions, I must assume things here and I trust they are not that off base as I have read many of Taheri’s articles in the past. But no, Lenin, Taheri is just one source in a bed of hundreds.

The semi-official reasoning behind the London attacks of July 7 is that the terrorists resented England’s involvement in Iraq. Reports have indicated the quartet were not members of Al Qaida, but that still doesn’t dispell the truth that at least one of those members appeared in an Al Qaida video and was praised in the same video by Ayman al-Zawahiri for carrying out Al Qaida’s work. The major foundation of Al Qaida’s own ideology comes from Zawahiri himself, and Zawahiri’s beliefs are largely derived from the Muslim Brotherhood. Those beliefs include a global Caliphate under Sharia Law. The same thing can be said with the attacks of 9/11.

Lenin calls into question another Taheri report I could not locate where Taheri supposedly said Tariq Ramadan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Considering Ramadan’s grandfather, Hassan al Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s not exactly a stretch. We must remember that at least during the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood there was a secret militant side of the group. Is there today? Not that I know of, but I still am unclear whether Taheri called Ramadan a ‘militant’ or not and I don’t take Lenin’s brief mention to heart.

But back Taheri and trying to find the logic behind Taheri’s report on badges. Considering Taheri is anti-Iranian regime, it would make sense that he would bash the Iranian regime with any club he can. But would he risk his entire career over an article that at least his sources told him was accurate and continue to stand by it? Yes, other journalists have done the same and most of those are finding paying the bills is a bit more difficult working for minimum wage.  One though is a prize winning journalist who pumps out an article every two months or so and goes by the name of Seymour Hersch.  Taheri isn’t the “neoconservative’s favourite ‘native informant’ about Islam,” or at least I have never heard anyone say anything near that insipid remark, but he is a well known journalist and public speaker. His entire career, like that of all journalists, is hinged on his own credibility. I fail to see why Taheri would risk so much for relatively so little.

The other argument I have heard with regards to Taheri now visiting the White House is that Taheri is working for the Bush Administration in an effort to build the case for war in Iran. That takes all statements made by Ahmadinejad, Iran’s known support for terrorist groups, the nation’s nuclear program, Iran threatening its neighbors and every other single piece that could make such a case and puts it into a huge credibility gap. No matter how dumb you may think the White House is, and Taylor Marsh sure thinks the stupidity is off the charts, there is no reason at all to plant such a story to make the case for war in Iran. Such a case could be made using the IAEA reports alone much less any of the other numerous reasons (again, I don’t support war in Iran at this time).

Marsh argues that Taheri works for a public relations firm, or in her words a neoconservative pr firm.  That means that anything Taheri argues doesn’t hold water and is specifically designed to cater to a specific audience.  Clearly Taheri’s speeches and pieces he works on for Bender Associates could fall into that category, but just because someone works in public relations doesn’t mean they are full of it.  I know because I do public relations.  There is a distinct line between a PR executive working for his or her client and the executive’s own opinion or reporting.  I have yet to see any evidence claiming Taheri was crossing that line.  If the report was nothing but a PR blitz, who would have paid him?  It seems the feeling is that he’s on the White House payroll now that he has been invited to to the White House.  But I thought he worked for Bender Associates and I have yet to see a contract with the White House paying Bender Associates for any public relations work.

Let’s get back to the original report that brought Taheri back into the mix though. The report indicates both President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been working with Iranian opposition groups. The only logical reason to meet with leaders of the Iranian opposition, and Taheri is one of many, is to try to support internal or expatriate regime change in Iran. Regime change in Iran has been bandied about on the floors of the U.S. Congress and there have been budgets set forth to aid regime change in Iran. Would it not be wise then to talk to members of the Iranian opposition to find out where and how best to spend that money?

Thanks to Winds of Change and Regime Change Iran for a few of the above links.

Right Truth linked with Ahmadinejad, the new hero of Arab world, rejects Condi's offer...