Right Web

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

Neoconservatives anoint Sen. Marco Rubio

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

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