Iranian American Jews

May 5, 2008 | 11:57 am

Nikbakht explains why Iranian Jews are not crazy about Obama

Photo
Photo

My article this week in the L.A. Jewish Journal focuses on the lack of enthusiasm among Iranian Jews for Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama. From what I’ve gathered from local Iranian Jews, they are turned off by Obama’s desire to diplomatically engage Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic regime.

The majority of Southern California’s Iranian Jews escaped Iran with little if nothing of their livelihoods nearly 30 years ago after Iran’s radical clerics took over their former homeland. So they view any diplomatic dialogue with the regime as a reward to Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic leaders who not only ruined their lives but have repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. Likewise many Iranian Americans and not just the Iranian Jews, blame former U.S. President Jimmy Carter for not supporting the pro-American Shah of Iran and indirectly allowing the Ayatollahs to come to power in Iran. Hence Obama’s decision to have a foreign policy team including Jimmy Carter’s former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carter adviser Robert O. Malley also works against him among Iranian Jews.

During my interviews with various local Iranian Jewish activists, I found the insights of Frank Nikbakht with regards to Iranian Jewish views of Obama to be fascinating. Nikbakht, who also heads the L.A.-based “Committee for Minority Rights in Iran”, spoke candidly to be about the topic and the following is an excerpt of my interview with him:

 

Can you identify what segment if any within our community would vote for Senator Obama if he won the Democratic nomination and why?

I don’t know anybody from our community who supports Obama. I imagine that a few intellectual types within the Iranian Jewish community would vote for him, as they would support any other populist.


From your assessment and interactions with local Iranian Jews, to what extent has Senator Obama’s calls for diplomatic engagement of Iran worked against him among local Iranian Jews?

Obama begins with the false assumption that American officials, Europeans and others have not been talking to the Iranian regime officials. This assumption is wrong and many contacts with the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) are known and have been reported. In addition to actual supporters of the IRI in the U.S. and Europe, international IRI opponents have also been talking to them all along. Obama’s propaganda does not really mean that the U.S. should talk to the Iranian regime officials, but that the U.S. should drop any demand which is not palatable to the Mullahs. Obama’s real problem is that he tries to portray the IRI as a normal regime.


Obama and his supporters say that having direct negotiations with Iran will open the way for tougher sanctions on Iran and give the U.S. more diplomatic clout if the mullahs do not agree to end their nuclear weapons development. How do you respond their argument?

The European experience in appeasing the IRI has proven this theory to be wrong!


Obama has criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of a bill classifying the Iranian “Quds Force” as a terrorist organization, claiming the bill could enable President Bush to launch military action against Iran. He stated that he would have voted against the bill if he had not been in New Hampshire campaigning. In your opinion, is this criticism by Obama fair?

Obama’s portrayal of the Islamic Republic of Iran as an ordinary regime, would naturally lead him to think of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps which according to the IRI constitution is tasked with the Global Islamic takeover, as just another “national” army. This kind of thinking or pretense, is extremely dangerous.


In your opinion does the fact that Obamas middle name is Hussein work against him when it comes to votes from the Iranian Jewish community?

The vast majotity of Iranian American Muslims, as most other U.S. Muslims, support Obama BECAUSE of his middle name. In the 2000 elections, many Iranian Muslims here advocated strongly for George Bush, because of his opponent’s last name, Lieberman while the Democratic ticket was almost boycotted because of it. Hussein is a very normal name in the Middle East, a name carried by many of our good friends and associates would not matter to us under any normal circumstance. However, it matters at this historical juncture when there is a global war against Islamic extremists and when this name is going to be carried by the President of the United States. The Muslim family background of Obama, reminds the Iranian Jews of the humiliation and persecution they suffered under the Iranian Islamic regime, which was the main reason why they emigrated to America in the first place. In Farsi we have a proverb saying “one who has been bitten by a snake, is even scared of a harmless rope”.

Posted by Karmel Melamed in 4 CommentsLeave your comment

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

was the che obama necessary?

Comment by Anonymous on 5/06/08 at 2:31 am

The fact that a banner of “Che Obama” is prominently and deliberately affixed to this article is evidence enough of its (lack of) validity. To call Obama a “populist” in contrast to Hillary Clinton demonstrates the prejudice - and moreover the fear - of Mr. Nikbakht who is obviously a conservative. I deliberately use the word fear because every “good conservative” knows (including Mr. Rush Limbaugh) that McCain does not stand a chance against Obama (Mr. Limbaugh advocated North Carolina and Indiana Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton). Of course, my ramblings can go on and on… but I’d hate to bore you with my Jewish/Iranian “intellectualism”.

GET A LIFE.

/F

Comment by Anonymous on 5/08/08 at 4:11 pm

The commenter about Rush Limbaugh doesn’t get it: Limbaugh wanted his followers to vote for Obama because he knew Obama wouldn’t have a chance against McCain, while polls confirm that moderate Democrats would defect in many cases from the Party in favor of McCain—precisely because they think Obama’s too “populist,“ untried and all fancy rhetoric without the substance or experience to back it up.

Also many average Americans are a lot more offended by Rev. Wright’s speeches than the liberals anticipated; by now, Obama’s speech that was supposed to “get us past” racial divisions, by explaining away Wright’s comments and trying to depict them as out of context, seems naive, and his liberal supporters have also clammed up in embarrassment about that. Obama’s refusal to refute the pastor until Wright himself made that impossible now looks like politics as usual. That’s just one example of how Obama’s real character is only coming out now, and his support among moderate in both parties is sinking.

There’s a lot about him that IS new and fresh, for example, suggesting that poor whites be recipients of affirmative action that same as minorities, that his kids aren’t more worthy of special treatment because of their color than poor whites from uneducated families, are. That’s been a bone of contention about affirmative action for years, the kind of thing that gives those like Kevin McDonald their support, and it’s about time we cut that base out from under them. Talking about class as well as race is a new direction, and a much needed one.

But in other areas, like foreign relations, Hillary speaks from experience and common sense. Jimmy Carter “making nice” to Ayatollahs in Iran, the dictators of Romania and Yugoslavia etc., only emboldened them. He’s now doing the same with Hamas and Hezbollah, which is more Obama’s bent, and it’s just naive.

What we need are leaders who can forge relationships between moderate Israelis (and American Jews) and moderate Palestinians, who especially in the younger generations, see more in common with each other in a democracy than with their own religious extremes.

Comment by Anonymous on 5/08/08 at 6:13 pm

The first paragraph of previous comment isn’t quite right: Actually, Rush’s meddling in the Democratic elections is part of his “Operation Chaos” to divide the party. In an article on his own website, capturing various tv interviews with him and Hillary, he’s ribbed for asking voters to vote for Hillary just to divide the party. Elsewhere, he did the same favoring Obama, who he believes has less of a chance against McCain. This explains his “endorsements.“

This one’s under, “Clintons Think Rush Has a Crush” on Hillary, May 5th. In the same article, he claims that when Bill Clinton saw him at a DC event, he had eyes for Rush’s date and distracted him with Ron Burkle and some guy Rush mistook for “A Secret Service Agent. Or a shoeshine guy.“ Only to find out it was our own Mayor Villaraigosa.

Comment by Anonymous on 5/08/08 at 7:02 pm

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  
URL:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive