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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share