Right Web

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

Graham Turns To Iran Hawks For Campaign Funding

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) super PAC consists of a donor base of hawkish “Jewish conservatives,” who Graham appears to believe that in order to appeal to he must derail the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

Last time I wrote about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) impending presidential campaign, Graham was feeding anti-Semitic tropes over a glass of Riesling, telling the Wall Street Journal that he “may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding.”

So who are the targets of his fundraising efforts?

Alex Lazar, a reporter at the Center for Responsive Politics, has highlighted the potential donor base of “Jewish conservatives” behind West Main Street Values, a super PAC set up to support Graham’s 2014 Senate campaign. Donors included former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Lazar continued:

Two individuals to keep an eye on from this list going forward are Larry Mizel and Sam Fox. Fox, a former ambassador to Belgium during the George W. Bush administration, gave $50,000 to the super PAC. Mizel, a Colorado businessman, ponied up double that amount at $100,000.

Mizel is also chairman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group; aboard member on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the country’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group; and a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition(RJC) board of directors. Fox, for his part, is a former chairman of the RJC.”

But these aren’t Graham’s only monetary ties to the RJC’s board of directors.

The top contributors to Graham’s Senate campaign committee from 2009 to 2014 are firms and companies either based in South Carolina or with a significant manufacturing presence in his state. But his fifth largest source of campaign funds, Elliott Management, a New York City based hedge fund, has no clear ties to South Carolina. That didn’t stop Elliott employees from contributing $41,250 to Graham’s campaign committee.

The fund’s founder and CEO, billionaire Paul Singer, funds some of Washington’s biggest critics of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran, including organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Foundation for Defense of DemocraciesAIPAC and The Israel Project. He also helps bankroll the campaigns of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) who promised that taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities would only require “several days” of bombing.

Singer, who also serves on the RJC’s board, was rumored to be among Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) key fundraisers, but Singer’s camp denies that the reclusive billionaire is backing any one candidate.

Graham appears to believe that appealing to the minority of Jewish Americans who identify as Republican—29 percent according to a Gallup poll released earlier this year—requires working tooth and nail to derail diplomacy between the P5+1 and Iran, promising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, that “the Congress will follow your lead” in pushing the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill back in December.

Graham, who previously sought congressional authorization for a military attack on Iran, is now promoting his own “eight principles to ensure we get the right answers and achieve a sound, enforceable deal.”

(Oddly, as noted by the National Iranian American Council’s Ryan Costello, Graham’s first “principle” is that Iran “must not be allowed an enrichment capability greater than the practical needs to supply one commercial reactor.” But supplying such a reactor could actually mean an expansion in the number of operating centrifuges, unlike the Obama administration’s deal which would limit the number of centrifuges enriching uranium to 5,060 for 10 years.)

Graham told the Journal that he would need $15 million to enter the presidential race. His showboating on national security over the past months doesn’t seem to have hurt this effort. He is expected to declare his candidacy on June 1.

Graham may be challenging Rubio’s position as the most hawkish candidate in the GOP’s primary field and the recipient of millions of dollars in RJC-affiliated campaign contributions. Given his expected campaign kickoff next month, however, he may have already raised the required $15 million.

His emphasis on a hawkish national security agenda, his unconditional commitment to following Netanyahu’s lead on congressional opposition to an Iran deal, and his ongoing efforts to walk back the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran would suggest that Graham is looking to challenge Rubio’s grip on neoconservative campaign funding.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share