Right Web

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

Why Manchin Opposed The Iran Deal After He Was For It

Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) surprise opposition to the Iran deal may due to the enormous pressure he has received from “pro-Israel” groups.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced earlier today that he will oppose the agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. He joins a short list of Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Ben Cardin (D-MD), that have broken with their party to oppose the deal.

Although Menendez, Schumer, and Cardin had offered hints that they were conflicted about the agreement and that their support was, by no means, a certainty, Manchin had openly flirted with supporting the deal. In an appearance on Face The Nation on July 26, he said that he was “leaning very strongly” toward supporting the agreement. Manchin presented the choice between the JCPOA and the alternative as a choice between war and peace, telling CBS host John Dickerson:

The only other option is go to war, and I’m not ready to send our people into harms way again until people in that part of the world want to clean up their own mess.

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe the following Tuesday, Manchin further defended the deal: “The bottom line is, do we go it alone, or with other allies?”

Manchin warned that if Iran had “bamboozled” Secretary of State John Kerry, as he had heard suggested, “then they bamboozled all the P5 and most of the free world. I’d rather go with the world than myself.”

Manchin’s About-face

But Manchin’s statement today, announcing his opposition to the deal, seemed to contradict his defense of the administration’s diplomacy back in July.

Although acknowledging that West Virginian constituents would pay a high price in any future military conflicts due to having “one of the highest rates of military service in the nation,” Manchin now rejected the argument he made in July that “the only other option is go to war.” He said:

However, I don’t believe a vote against this deal forces us to abandon the diplomatic path. We must continue to pursue peace, but on terms that promise a lasting peace for the United States and our allies.

Manchin didn’t offer an explanation of how he plans to pursue a diplomatic path with Iran and America’s European allies if the U.S. fails to approve the JCPOA, or whether his warning about the dangers of going it alone and splitting with European negotiating powers still holds water.

He probably won’t have to explain these contradictions anytime soon. Forty-one Senate Democrats now support the deal, enough to prevent a disapproval motion from reaching President Obama’s desk.

Manchin’s opposition, coming in the final days of vote whipping, was probably calculated to have little impact on the legislative outcome and destined for a footnote in the long battle over the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative.

But the question remains: Why did Manchin ultimately decide to side with Senate Republicans and only three other Democrats to oppose the Iran deal and contradict his own arguments supporting the agreement?

Reasons for Reversal

The best explanations point to political pressures rather than actual concerns about the JCPOA, which he had already defended as the best option to prevent another war in the Middle East.

Manchin was targeted by anti-Iran deal groups, including AIPAC, over the summer, presumably due to his position as a Democratic senator from a state in which Obama only carried 35.5% of the vote in 2012.

Anti-deal advertising, paid for by the dark-money group American Security Initiative and the AIPAC-affiliated Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, dominated political ad buys over the summer months in West Virginia, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

While pressuring him on the airwaves, pro-Israel donors also provided Manchin with considerable campaign contributions. NORPAC, a political action committee that backs AIPAC, endorsed his 2010 Senate candidacy. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Manchin received $122,110 since 2010 from pro-Israel donors, many of them affiliated with NORPAC.

Strikingly, only three of those donors, with contributions totaling $5,800, were actually from West Virginia.

Indeed, the campaign contributions from AIPAC-associated groups, heavy spending on ads pressuring Manchin, and the senator’s precarious position as a Democrat representing a state whose constituents voted against the Democratic president in both 2008 and 2012, all paint a picture of a Democrat who, if the votes allowed it, would seek the opportunity to split with the president on a pivotal vote.

And although Manchin made compelling arguments in favor of the deal in July, there were hints that he might waiver as early as March, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress to decry Obama’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran, a move so divisive that 58 Democrat chose to boycott the speech.

David Weigel, reporting for Bloomberg Politics, wrote:

“My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal,” said Netanyahu. “Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”

Very few Democrats applauded that line; those who did, like Arizona Representative Krysten Sinema and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, had to win over conservative voters.

Rep. Sinema (D-AZ) hasn’t yet announced whether she will support the deal.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share