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


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

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

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.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.