Right Web

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

AIPAC to UANI: Make Gary Samore Shut Up!

United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), the secretive neoconservative group, is apparently intent on distancing itself from the comments of its own president, Gary Samore, who has spoken favorably of the framework agreement reached with Iran.

LobeLog

I attended a lunch panel on Iran hosted by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) with Eric EdelmanJohn HannahRay Takeyh, and Jonathan Ruhe as the featured presenters. The conversation on the dais veered between quite hawkish and moderately hawkish, as one might expect from members of JINSA’s Iran task force. As the lineal successor to the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Iran task force, JINSA’s team has been urging the Obama administration to, among other measures, supply Israel with the latest version of the bunker-busting Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) and the aircraft to deliver it so as to, if Netanyahu finds it desirable, obliterate the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

As usual with these meetings, however, some of the most interesting dialogue came on the sidelines.

During lunch, I happened to be sitting in front of Charles Perkins, AIPAC‘s assistant director for policy and government affairs. I didn’t hear the full conversation, but Perkins at one point engaged a staffer whose name I didn’t catch from the pro-sanctions and highly mysterious group, United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). UANI, whose board includes a neoconservative who’s who, has opposed various stages of diplomacy with Iran. But, as my colleague Eli Clifton has noted, the group’s president—nuclear expert and Obama’s first-term non-proliferation czar Gary Samore—has defended the framework with Iran as probably the best that can be achieved at this stage of the game.

It was evident at the JINSA event that Perkins, the AIPAC official, was not pleased by this development. He complained to the UANI staffer about Samore’s praise for the announced framework. In particular, he was upset about Samore’s signing, along with several dozen former senior national-security officials, of a statement published by The Iran Project last week in support of the agreement. Perkins appeared to be under the misapprehension that Samore was speaking out in UANI’s name. But the group’s staffer assured him that, despite his position as president, Samore only speaks in his personal capacity (although he also noted that he was sometimes identified as the executive director of Harvard’s Belfer Center).

Indeed, he stressed that Mark Wallace—a former George W. Bush ambassador and a businessman involved in mining ventures that would allegedly profit from war with Iran—was UANI’s CEO and controlled the group’s agenda. It bears noting that when Samore has expressed skepticism about the P5+1 negotiations, UANI has issued press releases signed by both their top executives, as with these statements from September 2013July 2014 and last November. It’s also worth noting that UANI has not issued a similar leadership release since the framework’s announcement, only a statement highlighting the purported differences between the U.S. “parameters,” Iran’s response, and the “Joint EU-Iran” communiqué.

Though the conversation was brief, and I couldn’t hear all of it, the gist recalled above was crystal clear. (I did not have my notebook to hand; hence the unfortunate absence of direct quotes here.) I don’t want to overstate its importance, but it’s telling in a number of ways. First, UANI, which built its reputation by placing prominent non-proliferation experts like Gary Samore in high positions, is now distancing itself from Samore because it doesn’t agree with his expert analysis. Secondly, AIPAC is likewise worried that nuclear non-proliferation experts might actually consider the prospective deal with Iran a positive development or, in any event, the least bad achievable result under the circumstances. This, of course, is not the view of Amb. Wallace or any of the JINSA task force members who spoke yesterday.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share