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.

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

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