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

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share