Right Web

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

“This Is Our Munich”?

Last Thursday afternoon, in a tightly packed press room of the U.S. Capitol building, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi stood at the podium and smiled heartily...

Last Thursday afternoon, in a tightly packed press room of the U.S. Capitol building, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi stood at the podium and smiled heartily as she pointed to two columns of U.S. postal boxes stacked behind her.

She told the crowd, "Since Iran funds death," her lobby group, The Israel Project (TIP), was collecting petitions demanding that economic pressure and sanctions be brought against Iran for its refusal to halt its nuclear program and its alleged continued support for terrorism.

The "threat of Iran" and the need to confront the regime has become a mainstream view in the U.S. legislature, attracting support from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.

As the George W. Bush administration pushes its international allies to back a more rigid sanctions regime against Tehran, lobby groups such as TIP, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the neoconservative think-tank Center for Security Policy (CSP) have spearheaded a grassroots campaign to divest in companies that do business with countries that the State Department considers state sponsors of terrorism.

"Terror-free investing is an idea whose time has come," wrote Frank Gaffney, president of CSP, in a March op-ed in the Washington Times.

TIP "fights the war of words and images" to provide a "more positive public face of Israel," according to the organization’s website. Mizrahi’s lobby group may only be three years old, but it has already attracted strong support from high-profile congressmen such as Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), both of whom sit on TIP’s board of advisers.

Its success in attracting attention to the ostensible nuclear threat posed by Iran is another demonstration of the power of the Israel lobby to influence U.S. foreign policy and affect the policy debate in Congress. TIP’s press conference was striking for the strong written statements of support issued by more than 13 presidential candidates, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

"Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take," said Obama in a statement read aloud to reporters. "All nations need to understand that, while Iran’s most explicit and intolerable threats are aimed at Israel, its conduct threatens all of us."

Obama recently introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, one of several bills making its way through Congress that calls for stiffer economic sanctions on Iran’s energy industry and countries that do business with Iran.

"We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We must also not let go unanswered its state sponsorship of terrorism. We must not stand silent in the face of brutal repression of women and minorities. And we must not tolerate threats to the existence of Israel," said Senator Clinton.

In her statement, Clinton also plugged her sponsorship of Senate legislation aimed at closing loopholes enabling international corporations to evade sanctions through foreign subsidiaries.

The "Divest Iran" campaign has gained momentum in part as an alternative for lawmakers wary of a direct military confrontation with Iran.

"The record shows diplomacy can be more successful than you think even if they have had a nuclear test," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL). "There is an elegant policy road that exists for us to bring about a peaceful solution."

Kirk also recently introduced a bill in the House of Representatives aimed at companies and countries that provide gasoline to the regime, effectively resulting in a "quarantine on gasoline sales."

While Iran is one of the world’s largest exporters of crude oil, the country’s refining capacity is severely limited, and the government has been forced to import about 40% of its gasoline from abroad while offering the highest subsidies of gasoline to its citizens in the Middle East.

Most lawmakers in attendance preferred the deliberate ambiguity of leaving the military option "on the table" rather than direct military threats, yet they fiercely condemned Iran and questioned the mental stability of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"The Soviet leadership never called for the United States to be wiped off the map, but the Iranian leadership has. And no Soviet leader ever followed the dictates of the 12th Imam," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA).

While the president of Iran exercises nominal power (the de facto head of the executive branch is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements have raised his political profile while drawing heavy international criticism. In the rhetoric of U.S. lawmakers, he is represented as an unstable religious radical who denies the Holocaust and is "only a couple deviations away from total insanity," according to Sherman.

"This is our Munich. We need to stand up to Iran and tell them they cannot thumb their noses at world opinion," said Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY), who sits on TIP’s board of advisers.

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "'This Is Our Munich'?" Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, July 25, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share