Right Web

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

NORPAC Helps House Hawk Attack Iran Deal

The biggest donor to anti-Iran deal Rep. Ed Royce’s (R-CA) 2014 campaign committee was NORPAC, a political action committee aligned with AIPAC.

LobeLog

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) is leading the charge in the House of Representatives to derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed between the P5+1 and Iran to limit the country’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions. Royce may have a powerful financial incentive, in the form of tens of thousands of dollars in bundled campaign contributions from a group aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This money would enable him to continue in his role as the House’s leading Iran hawk. Royce’s biggest campaign donor in the current and previous election cycle is NORPAC, a political action committee aligned with AIPAC, which led efforts to kill the nuclear accord.

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Royce, approved the “Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act,” setting up the first of a series of expected showdowns over attempts to limit the White House’s ability to lift sanctions on Iran.

The legislation would give Congress greater oversight over the rolling back of sanctions. According to administration officials, the bill is an attempt to derail the JCPOA after opponents of the agreement, most of whom were Republican, failed to muster enough votes to block the agreement last year.

Even Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and one of a handful of Democrats who opposed the nuclear agreement, opposed the new legislation, saying, “I believe it doesn’t serve any purpose to have bills like this that are designed to kill the deal.”

The rhetoric from Royce, on the other hand, has only gotten more heated. During a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, he blamed Obama for the recent deterioration in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran after the Saudis started the year by executing Shiite leader Sheik Nimr Baqr al-Nimr. “They perceive we have tilted toward Iran and this has created problems in terms of our credibility in the region,” said Royce, who repeated the GOP refrain that the Obama administration is “leading from behind.”

Royce may believe that new legislation designed to constrain the White House’s ability to hold up its obligations under the JCPOA would improve regional stability. But he also has a valuable financial incentive to attack the Obama administration’s Iran diplomacy.

NORPAC directed $48,150 to Royce’s campaign committee in the 2014 election cycle (his second biggest donor, General Atomics, contributed $17,800) and $27,588 in the 2016 cycle (his second biggest donor, RIDA Development, contributed $13,500), according to data published by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The bundled campaign contributions might be a drop in the bucket for the AIPAC aligned group—AIPAC reportedly spent nearly $30 million fighting the nuclear deal—but it establishes NORPAC as Royce’s most valuable fundraising ally.

Royce is NORPAC’s biggest recipient of campaign contributions in the House during the 2016 cycle. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the group’s biggest overall recipient in the cycle.

NORPAC’s campaign contributions to Royce might seem generous considering the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman won his 2014 midterm election by more than 30 points. But Royce certainly isn’t turning down NORPAC’s overtures. The group held a fundraiser last month for Royce in Teaneck, NJ, praising the congressman’s role as a “leading voice on Iran sanctions.”

Royce is scheduled to elaborate on his views about the Obama administration’s foreign policy in an event today at the American Enterprise Institute, the locale from which “experts” such as Richard Perle, Michael LedeenReuel Marc GerechtNewt GingrichCharles Krauthammer, and Ahmed Chalabi made their case for de-Baathification in Iraq in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion.

Royce probably won’t touch on the foreign policy disasters hatched at AEI, or their role in setting the stage for the rise of the Islamic State, just as he probably doesn’t remind his allies at AIPAC that the group pushed for regime change in Iraq. Instead, according to the announcement, he will discuss “how the Islamic State and al-Qaeda can be defeated” and “the importance of American leadership to defend and advance freedom, security, and free markets both at home and abroad.”

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