Right Web

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

Iran in the Spotlight at Christian Zionist Confab

(Inter Press Service) The controversial Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee and thousands of supporters filled a convention center in downtown Washington last week for the...

(Inter Press Service)

The controversial Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee and thousands of supporters filled a convention center in downtown Washington last week for the Washington-Israel Summit of Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and the “Iranian threat” was a recurrent theme.

CUFI supports Christian Zionism—the belief that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of the Biblical End Times prophecy and thus deserves political, financial, and religious support. Its founder, Hagee, recently came under fire from Jewish groups and others for a sermon in which he described Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as part of God’s plan to drive the Jews from Europe and bring them to Palestine.

In support of two bills regarding divestment and sanctions against Iran that CUFI participants would lobby for on Capitol Hill, the conference hosted a panel where three neoconservative Iran hawks discussed the direction of U.S.-Iranian relations. Though the panel was closed to the press, this correspondent attended with a standard participant’s pass.

The presentations from the “Iran: Eye of the Storm” panel were filled with contradictions and featured alarmist rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran, reiterating claims that conflate Iran’s hostility toward Israel and genocidal intentions like those of Hitler.

Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, started off the panel by offering a view of the global threat that Iran poses—especially should it acquire nuclear weapons.

Clawson claimed, like fellow panelist Clifford May of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that Iran’s leadership is strictly ideologically motivated and not restrained by rationality or national interest.

The threat, Clawson said, emanates not from the heated anti-Israeli rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—who Clawson says does not set policies—but rather from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who Clawson said has referred to Israel as a cancer in the region.

Clawson said that the rhetoric was also less important than the threats posed to Israel by Iranian support for anti-Israeli groups in the Levant.

“Iran is spending at least $200 million a year financing, training, and arming every terror group that is killing Israelis in the pursuit of eliminating the state of Israel,” he said.

Clawson went on to say that because of Iran’s clear opposition to Israel demonstrated by its rhetoric and support for anti-Israeli groups, a nuclear-armed Iran would be an even greater risk.

“If Iran makes progress on its nuclear weapons, Iran will be in a much better position to carry through on these kinds of threats,” said Clawson. Adding an oft-repeated claim that the Iranian leadership doesn’t hold to rational thought, Clawson elicited laughter from the crowd with his statement that “Some Iranian leaders are quite happy to be suicidal. Many of them are not rational.”

But in the question and answer session that followed the panelists’ speeches, Clawson softened his position, implying that the Iranian leadership was capable of acting rationally toward Iranian national interests and is not totally beholden to its fiery rhetoric.

When asked about the potential retaliation of the Iranian regime to a U.S. air strike on Iranian nuclear targets, Clawson responded, “The history, so far, is of blood-curdling threats, and [then] nothing happens.”

Clawson pointed to an incident in 1988 when the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian commercial airplane. Clawson said that after the incident, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—the first supreme leader of the Islamic Republic and widely regarded as the most ideological Iranian leader since the 1979 revolution—had exercised restraint against retaliation.

Clawson even pointed out that the following week, Khomeini declared to the Iranian people that the United States had joined its then ally—Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—in the bloody, drawn out Iran-Iraq War, and unable to fight both the United States and Iraq at the same time, a negotiated settlement to the conflict needed to be reached.

Though Clawson expressed both views at the conference, the dichotomy is typical of arguments made against Iran. For a popular crowd, speakers will usually invoke the images of genocidal threats to Israel and beyond to garner support.

Meanwhile, speaking before more elite crowds, Iran hawks will often cite different arguments that don’t rest on the overblown notion of messianic, suicidal ideologues in control of the Iranian government.

For example, speaking at an event sponsored by the organization Intelligence Squared—this time on a dais that included both supporting and opposing views—and debating the notion that “We must tolerate a nuclear Iran,” Clawson, who was against the idea, never mentioned any of the more incendiary arguments against an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Rather, he stuck to only one line of thinking: that a nuclear-armed Iran would create an arms race and proliferation.

‘”If Iran gets away with building this, it will not be the only country,” said Clawson at Intelligence Squared, delivering the meat of his rationale.

While Clawson did mention the idea of proliferation at the CUFI summit, it took a back seat to his main argument of an ideological and irrationally driven direct threat to Israel.

May, for his part at CUFI, took an even harder line on Iran, spending the bulk of his time discussing a comparison of the Islamic Republic and the Nazi Germany of Hitler.

“Once again, we have enemies who know how to manipulate words, images, and ideas, who are organizing mass movements, and who are utterly ruthless, who are openly intent on conquest and genocide,” said May, bringing his comparison to a head and implying that Iran is pursuing another Jewish holocaust.

Frank Gaffney, the head of the neoconservative think tank Center for Security Policy, used his time on the CUFI panel to talk about how Iran directly threatens the United States. Gaffney claimed that Iran had been at war with the United States since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Pushing the idea of a missile defense system in the region, Gaffney suggested that the Iranians may be able to develop an electromagnetic pulse weapon in the form a crude nuclear missile that “could within practically the blink of an eye transform large parts of this country from a 21st century superpower to a pre-industrial society.”

However, these views do not appear to reflect those of most American Jews. A poll released this month by the firm Gerstein/Agne found that large majorities favor diplomacy with Iran, support a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, and are highly skeptical of political alliances with right-wing evangelical groups such as CUFI.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

 

Citations

Ali Gharib, "Iran in the Spotlight at Christian Zionist Confab," Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
/rw/4940.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share