Right Web

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

Michael Makovsky, a program director at the hawkish Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), is a U.S. and Israeli citizen who served in the Israeli military and once dreamed of working for the Israeli foreign service.[1] Makovsky has long been associated with key neoconservative figures, many of whom he worked with while serving under Douglas Feith in the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon, where he reportedly advised the Office of Special Plans.[2] Before joining the George W. Bush administration, he worked as an energy market analyst for trading companies, “focusing on markets and hedging strategies for oil, petroleum products, natural gas and electric power, as well as regulatory and tax issues.”[3]

Describing his time in the Bush administration, Makovsky’s BPC bio states, “From 2002-2006, Michael served as special assistant for Iraqi energy policy in the Office of Secretary of Defense and Director of Essential Services in the Washington office of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the postwar Allied entity that governed Iraq. In those capacities, he advised senior Defense, National Security Council and Energy officials on Iraqi energy policy.”[4]

Makovsky joined BPC in 2006, where he has been a consistent and outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. Middle East policies, especially on Iran, often penning articles for neoconservative outlets like the Weekly Standard. In a March 2012 Standard article published during the lead-up to President Barack Obama’s appearance at the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Makovsky argued that the United States should work to prevent Iran from developing the “capability” to build nuclear weapons—in contrast to preventing the acquisition of the weapons themselves. Makovsky did not elaborate on how exactly the United States could go about implementing such a policy.[5]

However, a February 2012 BPC policy paper, which mentioned Makovsky’s role as a staff director, suggested a plan of action aimed at making U.S. and Israeli threats to Iran appear more “credible.”[6] The report, titled “Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock,” argued that the United States should “increase its naval deployments to the Gulf, scale up the frequency and size of its military exercises there, and augment the offensive strike capabilities of its Gulf Arab allies.”[7]

Earlier, in March 2010, Makovsky wrote in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle that the Obama administration needed to clearly state its willingness to pursue a military option to shut down Iran’s nuclear program. Arguing that “senior administration officials should stop downplaying the viability of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities,” Makovsky claimed that demonstrating a commitment to use “all means available” provided the “best chance of resolving [the Iran situation] peacefully.”[8]

Ignoring doubts about the effectiveness of U.S. strikes on Iran, Makovsky wrote that the Obama administration “should beef up U.S. naval presence and conduct exercises with allies in the Persian Gulf and enhance their military capabilities. If necessary, the U.S. Navy could then blockade Iran to enforce sanctions on gasoline imports passed by both houses of Congress. Should Iran continue its nuclear program, the U.S. military can launch an effective strike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. This would disrupt Iran's nuclear development, still requiring ongoing vigilance to prevent its re-emergence.”[9]

Makovsky has downplayed the effectiveness of sanctions, opting instead for more confrontational measures. In a May 2009 article for the New Republic, Makovsky and coauthor Ed Morse contended that sanctions on companies that sell gas to Iran would be ineffective, and that the only “effective option” was to impose a naval blockade.[10]

According to the Inter Press Service, the New Republic article was “notable because it topples one of the pillars on which Iran hawks in the U.S. have based their arguments: the notion that targeted sanctions on the Iranian energy sector would cause serious damage to Iran’s economy and coerce Tehran into abandoning its nuclear program. … Instead, Makovsky and Morse urge the U.S. to implement a ‘naval blockade to interdict Iran’s gasoline imports, and possibly its oil exports.’ Since the authors admit that a naval blockade would be ‘tantamount to an act of war,’ they urge that it be used only ‘as a last measure short of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities,’ and that the U.S. prepare to mitigate the spike in energy prices that would likely result from Iranian retaliation. The article essentially says that AIPAC and other components of the lobby … are wasting their time and should be pushing stronger measures now.”[11]

In 2008, Makovsky led a BPC team that produced the report “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.” The lead drafter of the report was then-American Enterprise Institute fellow Michael Rubin, an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. policies in the Middle East. Other participants included Henry Sokolski; former Obama administration staffer Dennis Ross; Stephen Rademaker, the husband of AEI’s Danielle Pletka who worked under John Bolton in the State Department; and Kenneth Weinstein, CEO of the Hudson Institute.[12]

The report argued that despite Iran’s assurances to the contrary, its nuclear program aims to develop nuclear weapons and is thus a threat to “U.S. and global security, regional stability, and the international nonproliferation regime,”[13] a conclusion that contrasted sharply with the CIA’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran had put its efforts to develop nuclear warheads on hold.[14] The report stated, “As a new president prepares to occupy the Oval Office, the Islamic Republic’s defiance of its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and United Nations Security Council resolutions will be among the greatest foreign policy and national security challenges confronting the nation.” In contrast to many realist assessments of the situation, the report contended that “Cold War deterrence” is not persuasive in the context of Iran’s program, due in large measure to the “Islamic Republic’s extremist ideology.” Thus, even a peaceful uranium enrichment program would place the entire Middle East region “under a cloud of ambiguity given uncertain Iranian capacities and intentions.”[15]

The report advised that the new U.S. president bolster the country’s military presence in the Middle East, which would include “pre-positioning additional U.S. and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, emplacing other war material in the region, including additional missile defense batteries, upgrading both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expanding strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia in order to maintain operational pressure from all directions.” In addition, the new administration should suspend bilateral cooperation with Russia on nuclear issues to pressure it to stop providing assistance to Iran’s nuclear, missile, and weapons programs. And, if the new administration agrees to hold direct talks with Tehran without insisting that the country first cease enrichment activities, it should set a pre-determined compliance deadline and be prepared to apply increasingly harsh repercussions if the deadlines are not met, leading ultimately to U.S. military strikes that would “have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”[16]

Calling the report a “roadmap to war,” Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service wrote, “In other words, if Tehran is not eventually prepared to permanently abandon its enrichment of uranium on its own soil—a position that is certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio—war becomes inevitable, and all intermediate steps, even including direct talks if the new president chooses to pursue them, will amount to going through the motions (presumably to gather international support for when push comes to shove).… What is a top Obama advisor [Dennis Ross] doing signing on to it?”[17]

In October 2008, a month after the BPI report on Iran was released, Makovsky was a featured speaker at a Hudson Institute conference titled “U.S.-Israeli Relations at a Crossroads? Challenges to the Special Relationship.” The conference hosted a range of speakers, including Daniel Levy from the liberal New America Foundation, as well as several Likud-aligned ideologues, like Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, and Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren.[18]

Makovsky is the author of the 2008 book Churchill’s Promised Land: Zionism and Statecraft (Yale). According to one reviewer, Makovsky attempts to use a short-lived Churchill campaign strategy to woo Jewish voters to argue that Churchill's life was “spent serving the Zionist cause.” This simply wasn’t the case, writes Ugo Paladini. “Churchill maintained a lively interest in the affairs of Palestine, but his theatre was so vast that his focus could not stray for too long from the overall picture,” which included a “steadfast belief that a West-supporting Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East was essential to the balance of power in that region.” According to Paladini, Makovsky’s "deep attachment to the Zionist cause skews not only his vision of the state of affairs in the Middle East, but the image of Churchill himself.”[19]

Makovsky’s experience includes working as a visiting fellow at the Claremont Institute and at the Institute of Contemporary British History. Some reports indicate that while in Israel, Makvosky became associated with various hard-right factions in that country. Discussing his research into Makovsky’s background, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com wrote: “A USA Today article published in 1995 quotes a Michael Makovsky who lived at a settlement in the West Bank, and was a friend of Yigal Amir—the right-wing extremist who murdered Yitzhak Rabin. According to this report, Makovsky’s extremist allegiances aren’t limited to palling around with assassins. He was reportedly a member, in his student days at least, of the neo-fascist ‘Betar’ organization, which has a military structure (members wear uniforms, and engage in ‘drills’) and calls for a ‘Greater Israel.’”[20]

Makovsky’s brother, David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the author of a number of volumes on Mideast policy, including a 2009 book cowritten with Dennis Ross titled Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction in the Middle East.

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