Right Web

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

Armchair warmongers challenging the Iran deal

Elliott Abrams

Elliot Abrams has called for “reversing” the Iran deal and wildly accused President Obama of resorting to anti-Semitism in his criticisms of the deal’s opponents. "The president … must know that he is here feeding a deep line of anti-Semitism that accuses American Jews of getting America into wars," Abrams proclaimed in a recent op-ed.

Henry Sokolski

Sokolski, a former aide to Paul Wolfowitz, is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a member of the board of advisors of the controversial activist group United Against Nuclear Iran. Along with the controversial analyst David Albright, Sokolski is one of a very small handful of arms control “experts” who have heaped criticism on the Iran deal.

Eric Edelman

Eric Edelman, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and longtime opponent of the Iran nuclear negotiations, argued at a recent Senate hearing that Congress should consider “coupling its disapproval of the deal with authorization for the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

Joe Lieberman

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Iran deal, recently became chairman of the controversial United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and joined the advisory board of the AIPAC-backed Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran. He has urged members of Congress to revoke the agreement, declaring: "I can't think of a vote that I cast, apart from the ones deploying American troops into combat, that was as important as this agreement is to the future security of the United States.” Quipped one observer: “For those who are noting the overlap between Iraq war promoters and Iran deal saboteurs, Lieberman is your man."

Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens, a neoconservative Wall Street Journal columnist and supporter of the Iraq War, has bizarrely stated that voting for the Iran deal would be like having voted “for the Iraq War” and would similarly come back to “haunt” members of Congress. The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald said of Stephens' remarks: "First, note the bizarre equation of support for the war in Iraq with support for a peace deal with Iran. Second, since when do neocons like Stephens talk about the Iraq War as something shameful, as a 'stain' on one's legacy?”

Ray Takeyh

Iran-hawk Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues in a recent op-ed that Congress should reject the Iran deal and misleadingly suggests the United States could still push for a “more stringent” deal with Iran. “No agreement is perfect, but at times the scale of imperfection is so great that the judicious course is to reject the deal and renegotiate a more stringent one,” wrote Takeyh.

American Security Initiative

The American Security Initiative is an anti-Iran deal advocacy organization spearheaded by hawkish former Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Norm Coleman (R-MN). Renowned for its alarmist ads about Iran’s nuclear program, the group recently announced a $6.5 million ad campaign that the New York Times has said is “aimed at derailing President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.” Commentators have noted that AIC “clearly swing Democrats in mind” in regards to constituencies its ads are targeting.

David Albright

David Albright’s criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal have placed him amongst a diminishingly small group of arms control “experts” who oppose or seek to change the agreement. Underscoring Albright’s isolation, Mark Wallace of the controversial activist group United Against a Nuclear Iran was hard-pressed during a recent interview to identify many anti-deal figures in the arms control community, stating: “David Albright, even though he’s not affiliated with us, has been very useful.”

Letters from Right Web readers

My comment is very short:

1. Republicans are envious of President Obama's diplomatic skills and do not know how to react to his successes. So they have smeared him, behaving like naughty children towards their parents.

2. Not one Republican has any idea how to settle any domestic or international problems, without showing off with the war alternative—getting rich on the weapons industry.

3. Hopefully, Mr. Trump will be the GOP Presidential candidate because that would be the end of this treacherous, frightening, so-called Party.

Ulrike Siddiqi

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


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.


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.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share