Right Web

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a key congressional supporter of hawkish U.S. Mideast policies, embracing a right-wing “pro-Israel” platform. An officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves and a former five-term House member, Kirk’s congressional career has been bankrolled by lobbyist outfits like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

Kirk has been a leading proponent in the Senate of toughening sanctions on Iran in an effort to halt that country’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Kirk was co-author, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), of Iran sanctions legislation that passed the Senate in late November 2012. According to the Wall Street Journal, the sanctions, which were attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, “target Iran’s energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors, already in the sights of U.S. sanctions. But the legislation goes further, restricting trade with Iran in precious metals, graphite, aluminum and steel, metallugrical coal and software for integrating industrial processes.”[1]

In 2011, Kirk spearheaded a campaign aimed at pressuring President Obama to adopt Iran sanctions that observers argued Tehran could interpret as an act of war. The proposed sanctions, targeting Iran’s central bank, were supported by most Senate members and applauded by key elements of the “pro-Israel” lobby, including AIPAC. In a press release, the lobby stated: “AIPAC applauds today’s bipartisan letter—signed by 92 U.S. Senators—to the administration urging it to sanction the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or Bank Markazi. The letter, spearheaded by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), notes that the CBI lies at the center of Iran’s strategy to circumvent international sanctions against its illicit nuclear program.” (For more on the sanctions, see “New Iran Sanctions: Following the ‘Yellowcake’ Road to War,” Right Web, August 12, 2011.)

Kirk was also a leading supporter of the 2009 Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which according the Congressional Research Service would prevent the United States "from providing credit, insurance, or guarantees to any project controlled by any energy producers or refiners that contribute significantly to Iran's refined petroleum resources.”[2] Although loudly promoted by Kirk and other hardline “pro-Israel” figures,[3] the bill was sharply criticized by many observers, who claimed it would “hurt the Iranian people while having little effect on the leadership sanctions are supposed to put pressure on; undermine the Obama administration's attempts at engagement with Iran under a multilateral negotiating framework; and isolate the U.S. by antagonizing crucial allies in the UN Security Council.”[4] A version of the bill was eventually passed and signed by President Obama in July 2010.

Kirk’s hardline stance on Middle East issues, which has included supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has earned him considerable support from “pro-Israel” donors, prompting one commentator to call him “AIPAC’s Million Dollar Baby.”[5] According to data collected by OpenSecrets.org, Kirk was the top recipient in the House of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) that support Israel.[6]

Commented M.J. Rosenberg, a writer who formerly worked as an editor for AIPAC, “Why do the PACs love him? It is because Kirk is a pure Israel-firster. For Kirk, Israel can do no wrong. Add to that that he sits on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations where he brings home the bacon for Israel big time. ... I would not categorize him as pro-Israel because that would require supporting an end to the deadly status quo. Mark Kirk is just pro-AIPAC and shaking the trees for all the campaign money he can get by his hate rhetoric about Arabs. Playing like he's ‘pro-Israel’—and not just pro lobby—has paid off very very well for him.”[7]

Kirk has drawn other criticism for his strident views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a Washington rally for Israel held during the invasion of Gaza in early 2009, Kirk said, "To misquote Shakespeare, something is rotten in Gaza and now it's time to take out the trash." A U.S. military veteran commented on Daily Kos, “People who throw around such cavalier remarks have never watched a civilian bleed to death on a battlefield after being cut down in the crossfire. To people like Congressman Kirk, combat doesn’t involve real people in real situations. Just numbers, ideologies, terrorists, and ‘trash.’ It’s the same reckless attitude that birthed George W. Bush’s ‘bring’em on’ statement and many others like it.”[8]

Kirk’s Likud-aligned views of Israeli security were also in evidence in his opposition to the nomination of Chas Freeman to a key intelligence post in the Obama administration. Freeman, a highly regarded diplomat and scholar of Middle East issues who has spoken out against the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, eventually withdrew his nomination in early 2009 because of the uproar over his views, which was led by a number of high-profile neoconservatives, including former AIPAC official Steven Rosen.[9] Kirk contributed to the opposition by co-authoring a letter with Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) that pointed to Freeman’s business dealings as raising potential conflicts of interest, which was one of several attempts by opponents to call into question Freeman’s patriotism. They wrote, “Ambassador Freeman’s service on the Board of Directors of a company owned by a foreign government seems to constitute an obvious conflict of interest—especially given his service to a company owned by the People’s Republic of China with significant investment in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Your attention to whether Ambassador Freeman is an inappropriate candidate to participate in this independent review would be appreciated.”[10]

Although generally a moderate on social and domestic policies, Kirk has supported a number of controversial domestic policies, especially on immigration. In a statement released shortly after Kirk announced his Senate candidacy in July 2009, the Chicago office of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) stated, “In 2005, Kirk stated that he was ‘Okay’ with racial profiling directed at Arab males from ‘terrorist-producing states.’ Kirk notably voted in favor of many anti-immigrant bills proposed in Congress, including the infamous Sensenbrenner bill (HR-4437), which would have made criminal felons of priests, nuns, doctors, teachers, and even family members who helped undocumented immigrants. He has also come under fire from immigrant rights groups after indicating that he supports family planning as a way to curb Mexican immigration to the United States.”[11]

According to his congressional website, “In 1989, Mark was commissioned as an Intelligence Officer in the United States Navy. … From December 2008 to January 2009, Congressman Kirk became the first House member to deploy to an imminent danger area since 1942 when he served as special advisor for counternarcotics in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He has also served in Iraq, Haiti, and Bosnia and in 1999, was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal for his service in Kosovo. … Mark worked on the staff of his predecessor in the House, Congressman John Porter, a former Representative of Illinois' 10th District, and also spent two years at the State Department as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State. Mark then went into private law practice and eventually became counsel to the House International Relations Committee, a post he held until 1999.”[12]

 

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.