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


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. 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.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.