A self-styled member of the Iranian student dissident movement, Akbar Atri has, since fleeing Iran
in 2005, become a favorite of the neoconservative faction in the United States, where he has vigorously
promoted Iran regime-change strategies. Atri is a member of the Committee
on the Present Danger (CPD), an anticommunist Cold War-era pressure group that was reinvented
in the years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to promote an expansive "war on terror." CPD
leadership includes hardline and neoconservative luminaries such as Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ),
former CIA director James Woolsey, Reagan
administration figure Ken Adelman, and Morris
Amitay, former head of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, among many others. The CPD website quotes Atri: "Terrorism is the
last ploy for the enemies of freedom and democracy in non-democratic and underdeveloped nations. The
spread of democracy and liberty while diminishing poverty along with economic growth are the main elements
of fighting terrorism."
Atri's story, including his reasons for fleeing Iran and his alleged leadership in the Iranian student
movement, have been recounted in various fora, including the rightist New York Sun and Wikipedia,
which featured (as of October 2007) a fawning profile of Atri that was being investigated by wiki editors
for its apparent lack of neutrality. Atri's wiki entry at the time claimed: "Akbar Atri, a visionary
within the Iranian student movement, has been a longtime leading proponent of global democracy and
human rights standards within Iran. He is a founding member of Iranian Students for Democracy and Human
Rights and former member of central committee, Takhim Vahdat, Iran's largest student democratic organization.
He has been imprisoned, fined, physically abused at the hands [of] the Iranian regime for his political
activities." Atri was mentioned by name, very briefly, in the State Department's Iran chapter
of its "2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices": " In November student activist
Akbar Atri was sentenced in his absence to five years in prison for his activities."
A January 2005 New York Sun article, titled "An Iranian Student Makes His Escape in Face
of Charges," reported that Atri was "an organizer of the movement in Iran to win a national
vote on the legitimacy of the Islamic republic [who claimed that he] managed to slip out of his homeland
last month despite an open government investigation into his efforts to gather signatures for a petition
demanding the referendum." Said Atri of his surprise escape from Iran: "It is common in Iran
to have an open charge against political activists in order to intimidate us. They can bring these
charges to the court anytime they want. I was surprised I got out so easily. Usually people with open
charges against them cannot leave the country, but there was obviously a loophole in the system this
time. So I got out."
Some accounts of Atri's work challenge aspects of his public profile, in particular his claim to leadership
of the Iranian student movement. In an article about an "Iran Freedom Concert" that was held
at Harvard University in March 2006, the Harvard Crimson noted that Atri was the event's featured
guest. It reported: "The main guest featured at the Iran Freedom Concert, activist Akbar Atri,
strongly endorsed the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq at the event. He had already discredited
himself among Iranian reformists earlier this month when he appeared before Congress as a self-appointed
representative of the student movement to ask for American support for regime change in Iran. If the
organizers were interested in drawing attention to Iran, perhaps they would have contacted an Iranian
student organization. In fact, not a single member of the Harvard Persian Society (primarily undergraduates)
or the Harvard Iranian Students Association (HISA) (primarily graduates) was asked to support the concert.
Only when a translator was needed did the organizers bother to contact HISA." The Crimson article
added: "The need to defend human rights in Iran is as indisputable as the regime's long record
of torture and suppression of basic freedoms. ... [But] foreign interference destroys civilian lives,
institutions, and infrastructure, and provides a pretext for heightened repression. Solidarity with
Iranian dissidents must be sophisticated enough to avoid manipulation by the neoconservative agenda."
In March 2006, Atri participated in a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the neoconservative-led Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) aimed at building support for Iran sanctions legislation
promoted by Lieberman and then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
(New York Sun, March 3, 2006). Also speaking at the event was FDD's Clifford
May, who said of Atri: " In encouraging a new constitution within the framework of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr. Atri co-authored a petition which calls for a national
referendum on a new constitution. The referendum would provide Iranians the ability to request a
new constitution based upon democratic values. Since publication of this petition, more than thirty-five
thousand political activists and other organizations have signed and joined the cause. Following
release of the petition, Mr. Atri was able to leave Iran, seeking refuge in the United States, where
he currently travels across the country, speaking in support of freedom and a non-violent democratic
movement in Iran."
Atri's writings have been featured on the CPD homepage, including an October 2007 op-ed he penned
for the Wall Street Journal, entitled "Solidarity with Iran." In the article, Atri
took aim at those who disagreed with the Bush administration's effort to fund dissident movements in
Iran, a move viewed by critics as counterproductive and potentially dangerous (for an example of this
criticism, see Stephen Zunes, " The United States
and 'Regime Change' in Iran," Right Web, August 7, 2007). Wrote Atri: "There are many
sides to this debate, but one thing is clear: Those in Iran who favor receiving foreign assistance
and consider international solidarity essential to the success of Iran's homegrown civic movements
cannot speak freely. If they do, they will be subject to immediate retaliation by the regime. The lack
of robust, transparent appeals for outside help by civic leaders should not be confused with a lack
of need or desire for such help. ... Criticism of American support for Iran's democracy movement is not
defensible when made by those who have barely seen Iran, much less been a part of its struggle for
freedom. Despite being an elected leader of the Iranian student movement and an active participant
in university politics for 10 years, I do not purport to represent Iranians or even the Iranian student
movement. I speak for myself. Yet when Iranian-Americans who have no standing in Iran, and who have
received no backing from Iranians, claim to represent the will of all Iranians, I feel I need
to speak up."
Atri failed to mention that many of Iran's dissidents have refused to accept U.S. funding, and that
much of this funding has apparently gone to exile groups, a point made by Stephen Zunes in an article
for Right Web. Wrote Zunes: "Congress last year approved $75 million in funding for an administration
request to support various Iranian opposition groups. However, most of these groups are led by exiles
who have virtually no following within Iran or any experience with the kinds of grassroots mobilization
necessary to build a popular movement that could threaten the regime's survival. By contrast, most
of the credible opposition within Iran has renounced this U.S. initiative and has asserted that it
has simply made it easier for the regime to claim that all pro-democracy groups and activists are paid
agents of the United States."
In August 2005, Atri was one of several speakers at an American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) event commemorating the Solidarity movement in Poland. The connection?
AEI explained: "The events that took place in Gdansk 25 years ago are fundamental to the development
of democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, from Morocco to Iran, ordinary workers are seeking to rally
for basic rights of association and freedom to organize, proving that the lessons of Solidarity have
been learnt and that its heritage has not be [sic] squandered." The panel on which
Atri participated, "Democratic Change in the Middle East," also included Michael
Rubin.
Some neoconservatives question Atri's effectiveness as a promoter of regime change in Iran. Kenneth
Timmerman, the director of the Foundation
for Democracy in Iran, has argued that Atri, working in the United States and receiving money
from the U.S. government, is flawed as a catalyst for regime change and not as well suited to the
task as opposition movements operating in Iran. A revolutionary change, not a simple reform,
is needed in Iran, Timmerman argues.
"'Reformers' such as Akbar Atri, Ali Afshari, and Ramin Ahmadi of Yale University ... have gotten
the lion's share of the 'pro-freedom' moneys from the State Department. Instead of providing seed money
to a home-grown pro-democracy movement, State Department has sponsored Atri to go on a tour of U.S.
college campuses, and is now talking of providing him with a radio station to broadcast his message
of 'reform' into Iran.
"Like Monty Python's dead parrot, the State Department Iran 'experts' have nailed the reform
movement to the perch, and keep selling it again and again, pretending that it's alive. But no matter
how they dress it up, it's still a dead parrot" (FrontPageMagazine.com, April 20, 2006).
Others go further in their criticism of Atri. Muhammad Sahimi of the University of Southern California,
says he could be an "Iranian Ahmed Chalabi."
"The search for Iranian Ahmad [Ahmed] Chalabi (a superb liar) and Iyad Allawi (a CIA asset) has
been going on for sometime. The neoconservatives have been parading to Washington some Iranian journalists
and inexperienced university activists—to spend time at the Washington
Institute for Near East [Policy], and become associated with conservative organizations with seductive
names, such as The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Committee on the Present Danger, and
the National Endowment for Democracy. They
try to seduce them with fellowships, and meetings with leading advocates of regime change in Iran,
such as Richard—the Prince of Darkness—Perle and Michael
Ledeen " (Payvand.com, September 7, 2006).
