Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

AEI Scholars Call for Iran Regime Change and Possible War

Print Friendly

AEI Scholars Call for Iran Regime Change and Possible War

As tensions with Iran increase, many of the neoconservatives who laid the ideological and strategic frameworks for the invasion of Iraq are calling on the Bush administration to prepare for a preventive war against Iran and to immediately implement a “regime change” strategy.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), along with the Project for the New American Century, provided the Bush administration with many of the key members of its foreign policy team. In a January 2003 speech at AEI, President Bush noted that 20 AEI associates had joined his administration. Today, AEI scholars Reuel Marc Gerecht, David Frum, Michael Rubin, and Michael Ledeen are beating the drums for a preventive war against Iran or for a “regime change” strategy that rests on additional U.S. aid to select Iranian dissidents. We have included excerpts from their recent essays to provide readers a quick overview of the neocon arguments for expanded U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (a joint project of the IRC and the Institute for Policy Studies) and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, was among the leading critics of the pro-war arguments for preventive war against Iraq. In a recent analysis from FPIF, Zunes argues for a less bellicose U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and a more even-handed policy on nuclear proliferation issues. FPIF

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share