Right Web

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

Mark Kirk Wanted Release of Americans Held in Iran Before He Was Against It

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a hardline Iran hawk who consistently opposes diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, had a change of heart when it came to seeking the release of Americans held in Iran.

Print Friendly

Lobelog

Back in March 2015, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) placed the highest priority on seeking the release of Americans held in Iran. He, along with 18 of his Senate GOP colleagues, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry to urge him “to bring up these cases during communications with Iran and demand the unconditional release of these Americans.” The following month, he joined Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in publicly calling on the Obama administration to link nuclear negotiations to the release of Americans held in Iran.

Kirk is a hardline Iran hawk who consistently opposes the White House’s diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, but no one questioned Kirk’s sincerity in seeking the release of Americans held in Iran—until now.

In a radio interview on Thursday, Kirk completely abandoned his previous stance of prioritizing the release of Americans. He told WGN Radio’s Steve Cochran [my emphasis]:

But you know, we didn’t have to get our guys back. We shouldn’t have paid the ransom. The irony is the State Department, shortly after the payment was made, issued a worldwide travel alert to Americans saying, ‘you know there are a lot of people out there looking to kidnap an American in return for a ransom payment.’

Kirk’s staff tried to walk back his “we didn’t have to get our guys back” position, telling Andrew Kaczynski and Nathaniel Meyersohn at Buzzfeed News:

Senator Kirk has been clear that paying ransom for American hostages to the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism puts more Americans in danger and believes the Iranian prisoners released from the U.S. to Iran should have been the sole basis for exchange.

But Kirk’s office didn’t directly deny the senator’s new position that getting Americans released was a lower priority than he had previously suggested and repeated the fallacy that a “ransom” was paid.

“It’s that classic definition of a Washington, DC gaffe: Saying the thing that’s true but you aren’t supposed to say,” Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, told LobeLog. “The GOP hysteria about Americans held in Iran was never actually about that.”

Miles, whose group supported the Iran nuclear agreement, continued:

The GOP hysteria about Americans held in Iran was never actually about that. You’re hugely worried about nuclear work in Iran, but you won’t let the US take heavy water out of the country. You’re deeply worried about Iran working on a bomb, but you’re even more upset about a deal that makes them further from a bomb. It’s a lack of concern because there’s a lack of accountability. Mark Kirk just said the true thing. It has to make you wonder what his ultimate intentions really are.

A year ago, he was saying the most important thing was to get Americans home. If that isn’t true, then what is it really about?

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who is challenging Kirk in his reelection race, blasted Kirk’s comments, saying:

Mark Kirk was in the Navy and he should know that our country doesn’t leave its people behind. I’m sure thankful my comrades didn’t forget that when my Black Hawk was shot down over enemy territory. Saying we don’t have an obligation to ‘get our guys back’ from a hostile country like Iran is unacceptable. Whenever Americans are imprisoned by our adversaries, we don’t leave them behind. That’s not who we are.

Kirk isn’t alone in expressing discontent with the Obama administration’s success in negotiating the release of American captives in Iran. He joins a long list of Iran hawks who advocate for a more aggressive U.S. policy that prioritizes regime change in Tehran ahead of curtailing Iran’s nuclear program or securing the release of Americans held in Iran.

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