Family friends: Son of Iran`s Chief Nuclear Negotiator,Mohammad Zarif, was best man at John Kerry`s daughter`s wedding.

July 30th, 2015

In a lead article by Michele Hickford, (Editor-in-Chief, Guardian of the Republic, by Alan West), Secretary Kerry should have recused himself from the negotiations with Iran at the very outset because of his long-standing relationship to his Iranian counter-part in the negotiations, Mohammad Zarif.

Zarif, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Rouhani Administration, was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

In 2009, Kerry’s younger daughter  Vanessa married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian Nahed.

Brian’s real name, (before being shortened and Americanized), was “Behrouz Vala Nahed”.

Zarif’s son was the best man at the wedding.

When the marriage  was announced in the October 2009 issue of the New York Times, any reference to Dr. Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry was carefully avoided.

The same courtesy was extended to the best man and father, Mohammad Zarif.

After taking over as Secretary of State, Kerry revealed that his daughter had married an Iranian-American. Few knew about the friendship between the Kerrys and Zarifs.

Aside from Mohammad Zarif`s powerful position in Rouhani`s Administration as Iran`s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief Nuclear Negotiator,  he had held significant diplomatic and cabinet posts for Iran since the 1990`s.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse.

One expects that over time their relationship developed independently of his son-in-law Behrouz Nahed`s friendship with Zarif`s son.

May that have influenced Kerry`s objectivity as the Chief U.S. Negotiator with Iran?

Only time and investigative integrity can fill the information gap of how the background and context of their friendship evolved into a treaty in which the recipient was handed an E-Z pass to Superpower status.

Even a subconscious wish to simultaneously please a family friend (Mr. Zarif) and boss (Mr. Obama) has the potential to blur the objectivity required in negotiations so vital to the destiny of the nations in the Middle East.

Even in the data-driven world of medical research it is incumbent on the reviewers to identify any potential for bias, and how the Principle Investigator protected the integrity of the study against such bias.

That is the reason behind “personal disclosures”, and the preference for “double-blind” measures of baseline parameters and objectivity in the measurement of “treatment-effect”.

It`s already established that strong relationship-dynamics can easily eclipse the considerations of “hypothetical” complications that carry little personal or emotional significance. In particular when results are only observed with the passage of time, when the parties involved are no-longer in office and hence held less accountable.

Identifying a research study (or the drafting of a treaty) that took effect by bypassing standard oversight procedures, and in a situation where there was heightened risk of distortion and manipulation, itself indicates that its architects were not only consciously aware of their bias, but took defensive action in anticipation of discovery.

Presumably that was the reason why Secretary Kerry rushed the Treaty through the U.N. Security Council:  to establish a de-facto outcome prior to the more rigorous review required by Congress.

.

Comments are closed.