Right Web

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

Neocons vs. Neocon on Iran

The latest Iran bill wending its way through Congress has divided neoconservatives as Bill Kristol and his Emergency Committee for Israel find themselves attacked from the left by rightwing hawks like the Post’s Jennifer Rubin for their opposition to the bill.

LobeLog

Maybe I spoke too soon when I declared the fight over the new Iran bill wending its way through Congress as one between hard-line neoconservatives and AIPAC. The broad outlines of what I wrote remain true—everything from AIPAC’s intentions to Bill Kristol’s—but what I underestimated was how isolated Kristol would be even among his ideological comrades.

Let’s quickly review what’s happened so far. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee worked out a compromise on a bill to give Congress, if it so chooses, a vote on any potential nuclear deal with Iran. With the bill’s provisions softened, and perhaps seeing the writing on the wall given Democratic support for some kind of oversight legislation, the Obama administration backed off its veto threat and said it could accept the compromise. That’s when hard-line opponents of diplomacy with Iran in Congress—read: Republicans closest to the neocons—started to introduce “poison pill” amendments by the dozen. Because AIPAC backed the compromise version and discouraged amendments that might prevent its passage, Bill Kristol attacked the flagship Israel lobby group in a Weekly Standard editorial. That’s when I wrote my Nation piece headlined “AIPAC vs. the Neocons on Iran.”

But the unusual, though not unprecedented, split between AIPAC and neoconservatives hasn’t fully materialized. Many neocons have decided to side with AIPAC as the preferred course, at least for now.

On Friday, the Washington Post blogger Jen Rubin attacked two senators introducing “poison pill” (she even used the phrase) amendments—Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)—as “go[ing] off the rails” in their evident attempts to make Corker-Cardin a piece of doctrinaire anti-diplomacy legislation. (“As brilliant and inspirational as these two senators can be, it pains me to say, they at times severely lack judgment,” Rubin wrote. Ouch!)

Then, over the weekend, the normally hardest-of-the-hard-line Wall Street Journal editorial page followed suit, denouncing amendments that, “while defensible on their merits, would give Democrats the political excuse many of them seek to vote against the bill.” (Remarkably, the Journal, which explained its logic at length, appeared to assume that a) a deal was certain, and b) that it would endure at least until Obama’s successor took office.)

Both Rubin and the Journal editorial page, it should be noted, gave a nod to the compromise-killing amendments urged by Kristol and his letterhead group, the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), which has followed its honcho in pressing AIPAC and senators to support any and all efforts to sabotage a deal. “Some voices on the right who misread the current situation in which Congress finds itself (powerless),” wrote Rubin, in her unusually harsh admonition of fellow travelers, “have egged Cotton and Rubio on.” Likewise, the Journal acknowledged that the Senate compromise was “being assailed by some of our conservative friends.”

The dynamics at work here underscore the degree to which Kristol and ECI find themselves isolated on this issue, even among hard-line pro-Israel Republicans. When Jen Rubin and the Journal editorial page are attacking you from the left for opposing something, you are very far to the right indeed. (The same sort of newfound clarity might apply to those journalists, like Eli Lake and Josh Rogin, who went hook, line and sinker for Kristol’s attempts to heighten the contradictions, so to speak, between AIPAC’s core mission and its attempts to rebuff purportedly “pro-Israel” amendments to the Iran bill.)

There’s one final interesting factor worth noting: its name is Sheldon Adelson. Last weekend, Republican presidential candidates engaged in what has mockingly been called the “Adelson primary,” vying for the Likudist billionaire’s favor (and many millions) at his Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) annual convention. The same group sent out an “action alert” last week imploring its membership to “call your U.S. Senators and urge them to pass S.615″—the Iran review bill—”as soon as possible.” But, in a surprising omission, the RJC alert was silent about the killer amendments.

Although Rubin and the Journal editorial board aren’t beholden to Adelson for millions of dollars in donations, Republican presidential hopefuls and members of Congress certainly are—and Adelson is known for taking an all-or-nothing approach to bestowing his largesse upon only those who keep lockstep with his hard-line views. One might guess that Adelson, who never saw a super-hawkish position he didn’t want to throw cash at, might support the amendments to the Iran bill—but one might’ve thought the same of Rubin and the Journal. We just don’t know… yet. The RJC’s silence also raises questions about the position of Benjamin Netanyahu, another major Adelson beneficiary, who may finally be heeding AIPAC’s advice against encouraging the most extreme elements in the Republican Party.

With the Adelson/RJC abstention from the debate, only this much is clear: Bill Kristol is far out on a right-wing limb on this one. Nonetheless, he has the ear of several senators, among them his protégé Tom Cotton, but also others like Rubio and another GOP presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz (R-TX). That Kristol’s lone voice can muster such action in the halls of power should be a sobering thought for all of us.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share