Right Web

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

Clinton Campaign Recycles Hawkish Foreign Policy Positions

Similar to her 2008 attacks against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is now criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for his advocacy of diplomacy with Iran.

LobeLog

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign adopted what appeared to be a new strategy against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is, according to polls released today, leading her by eight points in Iowa and nine points in New Hampshire. She attacked his support of diplomacy with Iran, dispatching Jake Sullivan, a senior policy adviser and the State Department’s former director of policy planning, to accuse Sanders of proposing to “aggressively normalize relations and to move to warm relations with Iran.”

For starters, the Clinton camp’s is employing a highly selective interpretation of what Sanders said at Sunday’s debate. Sanders, while expressing support for continuing to improve relations with Iran, explicitly said he was not in favor of opening an embassy in Tehran at this time and expressed concern with the rhetoric coming from Iran’s leadership.

At Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate, he said:

I think what we’ve got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran’s behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with; their support for terrorism, the anti-American rhetoric that we’re hearing from of their leadership is something that is not acceptable.

On the other hand, the fact that we’ve managed to reach an agreement, something that I’ve very strongly supported, that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. And that I believe we’re seeing a thaw in our relationships with Iran is a very positive step. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes.

Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don’t think we should. But I think the goal has got to be as we’ve done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.

That’s a far cry from calling for a sudden normalization of relations. But attacking her primary opponents for advocating the benefits of diplomacy is becoming a time-honored tradition for Clinton. In 2007, for instance, she employed almost the exact same strategy in her attacks on then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

Attacking Obama

During a July 2007, debate, Obama said that he would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Clinton declined to make such a promise, saying, “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

In a follow-up interview with the Quad City Times Clinton said that she thought Obama’s position was “irresponsible and frankly naive.” The paper reported:

Her campaign later circulated a memo to reporters saying it was a “mistake” to commit to presidential-level meetings without precondition “with some of the world’s worst dictators” and portrayed her remarks as showing her depth of experience.

Obama, in a separate interview with the Times, vigorously defended his comments.

“What she’s somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said.

He added Clinton is making a larger point.

“From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points,” he said. “I think that is absolutely wrong.”

He likened the position to a continuation of the Bush administration diplomatic policies. And he said what was “irresponsible and naive” was voting to authorize the Iraq War.

Over eight years later, Clinton’s comments seem particularly foolish. Obama’s signature foreign policy accomplishments can be traced back to his willingness to engage in diplomacy with two longstanding U.S. enemies, Iran and Cuba. And the public has largely supported these diplomatic overtures.

A September 2015, ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 51% of registered voters supported the Iran nuclear deal while 41% opposed it. A Pew Poll conducted after Obama announced the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the U.S. and urged Congress to lift the trade embargo, found that 73% of respondents supported reestablishing diplomatic relations and 72% supported ending the embargo.

But the Clinton campaign’s decision to lash out at Sander’s endorsement of Obama’s style of foreign policy, which produced policy shifts largely in line with public opinion, isn’t the only hypocritical aspect of her strategy.

Jake Sullivan, the Clinton aide tasked with launching the misleading attack on Sanders, was part of the team tasked by Obama to initiate a series of secret meetings in Oman with Iranian officials in 2012. Those talks marked the beginning of three years of negotiations, culminating in the agreement to constrain Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from nuclear related sanctions.

“The Iranians look at him as someone they can deal with,” Dennis Ross, a former top national security official in the Obama White House, told Politico.

Cultivating Saban

Clinton and Sullivan must think there are political points to be scored by opposing further diplomacy with Iran and rejecting the type of foreign policy undertaken by the Obama administration. But Sullivan’s direct role in initiating the policy shift with Iran, Clinton’s failed efforts to run the same hawkish campaign strategy in 2007, and the public’s support of negotiations with Iran and Cuba all raise the question: who is the intended audience for Clinton and Sullivan’s hawkish rhetoric?

Clinton megadonor Haim Saban may be one explanation for the tilt toward hawkish positions. Between 2008 and 2013, his family foundation contributed over $8 million to the Clinton presidential foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave $5 million to the American Israel Education Foundation, the AIPAC fundraising arm that arranges congressional junkets to Israel. AIPAC spent an estimated $30 million opposing the Iran nuclear deal.

Saban also contributed $5-10 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation and $1 million to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Saban has gone even further than just opposing the nuclear deal. Speaking alongside GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson at an Israeli-American Council conference in November, Saban criticized the Obama administration’s negotiating tactics with Iran, complaining, “we’ve shown too many carrots and a very small stick.” He warned that if necessary to defend Israel against Iran, “I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.”

Yesterday, The New York Times suggested that, “The Clinton strategy on this front raises the risk of deterring powerful supporters of Israel from embracing Mr. Sanders should he capture the nomination.”

The paper reported, “Later, in a conference call with reporters, Mr. Sullivan was more direct: ‘Many of you know Iran has pledged the destruction of Israel.’”

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