Right Web

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

The Disappearing Prince of Darkness

Prominent neoconservative Richard Perle has notably been missing from the Iran deal debate, with some inside sources saying he has fallen out of favor with senior staff at the American Enterprise Institute.

Print Friendly


Where is Richard Perle?

His virtually total absence from the Iran nuclear debate over the past two years was perhaps one of the most remarkable features of the whole controversy. Ubiquitous in the major media in the run-up to and aftermath of the Iraq war debacle and a long-time advocate of “regime change” by whatever means in Iran, the “prince of darkness,” Washington’s leading neoconservative operative for several decades, seems almost to have entirely disappeared from public view.

A pretty exhaustive search on Google and in Nexis-Lexis found only a couple of instances where he was interviewed about the Iran deal at any length. Both appeared on the right-wing “NewsMax” website. On March 3 this year, he commented on Bibi Netanyahu’s controversial speech to a joint session of Congress: “it was an excellent speech and should put behind us the controversy over whether he should’ve been invited.” And on March 23, he predicted that the deal between Tehran and the P5+1 was headed for a “crash landing” due to congressional opposition. On April 28, he was also interviewed in a video produced by the Wilson Center, but the main subject was the effectiveness of sanctions against other countries. The Iran sanctions “should’ve been part of a strategy for regime change,” he opined.

On June 8, 2015, he was interviewed on “Secure Freedom Radio,” an outlet of the far-right Center for Security Policy (CSP), led by his old comrade-in-neocon-arms and former subordinate in Scoop Jackson’s office and at the Pentagon, Islamophobe Frank Gaffney. But the subject of that show was Turkey and the Kurds, not Iran. You would think that the man the Corporation for Public Broadcasting chose to present the hour-long “The Case for War” in its controversial 2007 “Crossroads” series would get a bit more media attention as Washington debated perhaps the most significant Middle East-related diplomatic accord since the Oslo agreement a couple decades ago.


When I first noticed his glaring absence from the public debate on the Iran deal, I thought it was perhaps a clever tactical move on his part. After all, Perle was a very early promoter of Ahmad Chalabi and, more than any single individual outside the Bush administration, led the public charge for the Iraq invasion. He repeatedly insisted on the major television and cable networks, even before the proverbial dust had settled on Lower Manhattan, that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Later he floated tall tales about meetings in Prague between Saddam’s agents and Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi leader’s crash nuclear weapons program. For him to take a leading role in rallying opposition to the Iran deal would inevitably evoke memories of his earlier warmongering and thus might prove counter-productive.

Of course, it was also possible that major media had learned that they had a public responsibility not to give a platform to people with well-established records either of mendacity or gullibility—Perle still thinks Chalabi, the architect of de-Baathification, is Iraq’s savior-in-waiting—depending on which you category you believe best applies to Perle. But, judging from all the attention they gave to Bibi’s views on the Iran deal—not to mention the recent ravings, at AEI no less, of Dick Cheney—I don’t find that explanation particularly persuasive.

In the two NewsMax interviews, Perle was identified as a “senior fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute. At the Wilson Center and on “Secure Freedom” interviews, he was referred to as a “resident fellow” at AEI. Remarkably, however, Perle’s name no longer appears on the think tank’s list of scholars and fellows. On Wednesday, I phoned AEI’s press contact to ask exactly what was Perle’s position. She hesitated and asked me to send an email that she could refer to the right person. But no reply was forthcoming. When I talked with AEI’s receptionist last week, she told me that, although Perle retained an affiliation with the Institute, he was “off-site.” And when I inserted his name into the site’s “Search” tab, the latest item that comes up dates back to April 20, 2014. This was an article he co-authored with his son, Jonathan, for The American Interest entitled “Leadership as a Last Resort”—a predictable neocon critique of the Obama administration—in which he was described as “a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Defense.”

So why doesn’t he show up on AEI’s experts’ list? And why can’t its press people tell me what his status is?

Of course, he may simply have retired. But given his long service to and association with AEI, doesn’t he somehow deserve to be given emeritus status? He no doubt raised lots of money for the institution. When Perle and the neocons were riding high in George W. Bush’s first term (when Cheney ruled the roost), Bruce Kovner, a very private but very important neocon philanthropist, served as deputy chairman and then chairman of AEI’s board of trustees and was likely its top individual donor. From 2002 through 2005, he gave AEI some $11.5 million, according to tax filings. Kovner, who is known to have been close to Perle (as well as Cheney), is still on AEI’s board of trustees.

Pletka’s Ploy?

I have heard from some well-connected neoconservatives, however, that Danielle Pletka, a former Perle protégée who has served as AEI’s vice president for foreign and defense policy for a number of years now, has long looked forward to (and may have lobbied for) Perle’s departure. Her unhappiness with him apparently dates at least from 2008 when the Wall Street Journal reported that he was actively exploring investing in oil-related projects in Kurdistan. He was also looking into additional investments in Kazakhstan whose notoriously authoritarian and corrupt president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, he had praised as “visionary and wise,” according to the Kazakhstan embassy here.

As the Journal noted at the time, Perle resigned as chairman of Don Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board (DPB) in March 2003 after the exposure of his role as an adviser to a telecom company (Global Crossing) that was seeking the Bush administration’s approval of its sale to a Hong Kong-based corporation. Global Crossing had retained his services for $125,000 with the promise that he would receive an additional $600,000 if the sale were consummated, according to The New York Times. Perle subsequently severed his ties to Global Crossing and pledged to donate any fee for his past service to “the families of American forces killed or injured in Iraq,” But he retained his membership on the DPB—which, thanks to Perle and his good friend then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, was dominated by fellow neocons—at Rumsfeld’s behest. (Perle and Rumsfeld forged close ties dating back to their mutual effort to derail détente in the mid-1970s.)

Pletka’s unhappiness reportedly increased in 2011 at the outset of the insurrection against Muammar Qadhafi. Documents made public by the Libyan opposition established that Perle had travelled to Libya twice in 2006 to meet with Qadhafi as a paid adviser to The Monitor Group, a Massachusetts-based consultancy firm that had been retained by Tripoli for a “Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi,” as one Monitor memo described its role. Perle, who never registered as a foreign agent, later reported his findings to Cheney, according to the documents.

If it’s true that Pletka has maneuvered Perle out of AEI, it marks something of a watershed. Probably Washington’s most influential neocon operative of his generation, he played a critical role in driving the U.S. to war in Iraq, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith (another Perle protégé). But he seems to have retired to the fevered swamps of Gaffney’s CSP.

His departure, if that indeed is what it is, follows those of his long-time collaborators at the Institute. There’s Joshua Muravchik, one of the few neocon apparatchniks who has voiced some regret about Iraq but who has nonetheless promoted war with Iran since at least 2006. And there’s also Michael Ledeen, who, judging by his writings, has long occupied a fevered swamp of his very own as a columnist at Pajamas Media. Ledeen went from being the “Freedom Scholar” at AEI to the “Freedom Scholar” at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) several years ago. Another former AEI scholar, Reuel Marc Gerecht, moved over to FDD at the same time. It’s not clear whether the departure of any or all three were related to Pletka’s dissatisfaction with their work (although Muravchik had loudly complained to colleagues before he left that he was under pressure to produce more op-eds in more prominent publications). Or perhaps the promise of FDD’s ever-expanding budget—provided by billionaire members of the Republican Jewish Coalition such as Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer— lured them away.

None of this means, however, that AEI’s foreign policy team has lost its belligerent and militaristic stripes. Its most visible “scholar,” after all, remains John Bolton, while Paul Wolfowitz has occupied a perch there since his unceremonious departure from the World Bank. Pletka, who, like Bolton, once worked for Jesse Helms, has herself become something of a television regular as the acerbic critic of the “weakness” and “appeasement” of the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the albeit much more obscure Perle protégé, Michael Rubin, continues to uphold hardline neocon orthodoxy in his contributions to National Review and Commentary’s Contentions blog.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.