Right Web

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

Neoconservatives anoint Sen. Marco Rubio

Print Friendly

Sheldon Adelson

Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate and “pro-Israel” hardliner who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to influence the outcome of U.S. elections, apparently has decided to throw his support behind Sen. Marco Rubio. According to Donald Trump, “Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!”

Paul Singer

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a “pro-Israel” megadonor, recently endorsed Senator Rubio for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, calling him the “best explainer of conservative in public life today” and the “strongest choice” for the nomination.” According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, Singer personally gave more than $11.5 million to conservative groups in 2014, “more than any Republican in the country.” Singer has also supported a slate of neoconservative advocacy organizations, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Center for Security Policy, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Marco Rubio

The endorsement of billionaire GOP funder Paul Singer appears to put Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the driver’s seat for the Republican presidential nomination. With a passel of neoconservative advisers and support from another major rightwing “pro-Israel” megadonor—the controversial Israeli casino magnate Sheldon Adelson—Rubio is poised to give the war party its most effective advocate since the first George W. Bush administration and the Iraq War.

Jamie Fly

Jamie Fly is a foreign policy advisor to Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign. “If you want a foreign policy adviser with strong ties to the neocon world, it's hard to do better than Fly,” writes one observer. Fly has opposed diplomacy with Iran and argued for military strikes against the country as far back as 2011, when he opined: “It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response."

John Bolton

Although John Bolton, President Bush’s notorious UN ambassador, has ruled out running in the 2016 presidential election, he still regularly provides starkly hardline comments on U.S. foreign policy. Regarding the Iran nuclear deal, Bolton argued recently that now “only a preemptive military strike can block Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons state.”

Bill Kristol

Neoconservative talking head Bill Kristol has not been happy about Donald Trump’s surge in the Republican presidential primary race. He says that if Trump wins the nomination, he would “support getting someone good on the ballot as a third party candidate.” Kristol has yet to explicitly endorse Rubio and has instead described an “excellent independent ticket” as being comprised of former Vice President Dick Cheney and uber-hawkish Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

Dick Cheney

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been a vocal and bombastic critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. He has characterized the Iran nuclear deal as Obama giving the Iranians “everything they asked for.” Cheney recently coauthored a book with his daughter, Liz Cheney, which according to the Washington Post is a “relentlessly militaristic to-do list for the next commander in chief.”

Paul Wolfowitz

Controversial former Bush administration official Paul Wolfowitz serves as a foreign policy advisor to Jeb Bush’s faltering presidential campaign, joining a host of other neoconservative figures who previously were associated with the administration of his brother George W. Bush. Wolfowitz has also been critical of the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it “concedes” too much to Iran.

Michael Rubin

Michael Rubin, a neoconservative pundit based at the American Enterprise Institute, has described the Iran nuclear deal as “craven capitulation” and called for the United States to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist entity.” He advocates a “recapitalization of American defense capabilities” to “undertake unilateral military action against the Islamic Republic in the event of material breach of the JCPOA or some other casus belli.”

Max Boot

Neoconservative military historian Max Boot, a longtime proponent of war with Iran, has denounced the Iran nuclear deal as a “massive capitulation” by the Obama administration and tantamount to ceding American “dominance” in the Middle East to “Iranian imperium.” According to Boot, “the only credible option for significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program would be a bombing campaign.”

David Frum

According to Atlantic columnist David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, the Iran nuclear deal “upends the security of the Middle East.” He argues that the United States has made “too much of a priority out of the Islamic State” while the “West’s most important strategic threat in the region” is Iran. Quips one observer: “The notion that Iran is a greater threat than the Islamic State and therefore demands a tougher response is nonsense.”

Michael Ledeen

Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative activist who was once described by a Bill Clinton aide as a “channel for Israeli intel,” has argued that the United States faces a new “Axis of Evil,” which he says is comprised of the original three George W. Bush-designated countries of Iran, North Korea, and even post-U.S. invasion Iraq, along with “Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries, and terrorist groups including al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State.” He claims that there is “no escape” from war with this axis.

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes, the Islamophobic director of the Middle East Forum, has given to hyperventilating over the Iran nuclear deal, claiming that it is “arguably the worst international accord not just in American history or modern history, but ever.” He has also lambasted President Obama as a “leftist who sees the imperialism, militarism, and corporate greed of the United States as a menace to the outside world.”

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin, a bellicose Washington Post blogger and “pro-Israel” ideologue, predicted that Congress would scuttle the Iran nuclear agreement. After Congress failed to vote to block the deal, Rubin claimed that there was “no longer true bipartisan support for Israel” and that there was only “one party, the Republican Party, for whom support for Israel is a litmus test.”

American Enterprise Institute

Since the end of the Bush years, there has been a steady exit of hardline neocons from the American Enterprise Institute, including most recently Richard Perle. These moves notwithstanding, the think tank clearly remains a preeminent member of the right-wing “pro-Israel” lobby. Case in point: AEI recently announced it would be rewarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with its top honor, the “Irving Kristol Award.” Said Netanyahu: “I was fortunate to have known Irving, who was a towering intellectual, a stalwart friend of Israel, and a great champion of the US-Israel alliance. I look forward to receiving this award and discussing ways in which the unique friendship between Israel and the United States can continue to grow deeper.”

Middle East Forum

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is a hardline “pro-Israel” think tank that frequently publishes anti-Islamic reports. Founded by Daniel Pipes, MEF fellows have recently claimed that suicide terrorism is “all but unthinkable without the Islamic tradition,” that the Iran nuclear deal was “horrendous,” and that the Obama White House is “led by social justice ideologues” who “understand nothing about a revolutionary Islamist regime.”

Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy (CSP), a neoconservative think tank led by the unabashedly Islamophobic Frank Gaffney, held its annual gala dinner recently. A featured speaker at the event called Islam an enemy that has “existed for 1,400 years” and “brought devastation to nearly the same number of humans as the plague.”

Hudson Institute

The Hudson Institute, part of a closely-knit group of neoconservative policy institutes, champions aggressive and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies. It recently hosted hawkish Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who used the Hudson perch to claim that President Obama has a “tendency” to give terrorists “a hand and help them up off the mat.”

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.