Right Web

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

From Al Qaeda to Iran; Plus, Profile on John Hagee, Christians United for Israel, Jeb Bush and more

FEATURED ARTICLE From Al Qaeda to Iran By Carah Ong Iran is the barrier to success in Iraq, according to administration officials and its supporters. But Iranian and U.S. interests actually converge, and it’s the administration that’s putting up many roadblocks. Read full story. FEATURED PROFILES John Hagee The millionaire pastor of a megachurch in…

FEATURED ARTICLE

From Al Qaeda to Iran
By Carah Ong

Iran is the barrier to success in Iraq, according to administration officials and its supporters. But Iranian and U.S. interests actually converge, and it’s the administration that’s putting up many roadblocks.
Read full story.

FEATURED PROFILES

John Hagee
The millionaire pastor of a megachurch in Texas, Hagee argues that President Bush’s support for Israel will play a “pivotal role in the second coming” of Jesus. Like many other conservatives, Hagee promotes the term “Islamofascism" but goes further, warning that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."

Christians United for Israel
CUFI, a Christian Zionist organization with strong ties to right-wing political figures, promotes a united Jerusalem and uses neoconservative language on “Islamofascism.”

Jeb Bush
Jeb Bush, the popular former Republican governor of Florida and brother to the president, seems poised to become a presidential candidate in four years if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB

Olmert on Iran
By Peter Hirschberg

Sometimes portrayed as imminently inclined to attack Iran’s nuclear program, Israel has lately made commitments to diplomacy. Read full story.

Optimism on Iran
By Trita Parsi

The poisonous relationship between the United States and Iran has prevented the two countries from exploring areas of common interest, yet the risk of war has gone down. Read full story.

Losing the Popularity Contest
By Gareth Porter

A new opinion poll shows that few in the Middle East think the “surge” is working, that many believe Iraq would be better off without a U.S. military presence, and that sympathy for al Qaeda is growing. Read full story.

LETTERS

Re: Najum Mushtaq, “Missing the Point in Pakistan,” March 27, 2008

While most of the arguments made in Najum Mushtaq’s article are valid and help describe how Pakistan has become a threat to itself, the writer fails to make a convincing case for why Pakistan should not remain a nuclear power. In fact, I think he is missing the point.

It is naive to think that Pakistan’s people or its government would even consider such a suggestion. Likewise, for the United States, it wouldbe politically impossible to considerpushing this agenda, especially when it is closing nuclear deals with neighboring India.

Pakistan’s interest is to protect its sovereignty and build a strong defense. Its nuclear weapons infrastructure has also served as an educational tool for the country and its elite, helping it to compete with world-class technical and scientific standards and to prevent it from looking upon India with envy.

Mr. Mushtaq rejects the idea of assisting Pakistanin the technical and political know how that countries like the United States and France havelong experience with.But providing that kind of assistance would help diminish old suspicions and belie fears of unwarranted pressure tactics.

Diplomacy and technical assistance aimed at helping Pakistan become a responsible member of the nuclear club is the only way to handle the situation in that country. Other current examples support this case. In the heated situation over Iran’s nuclear program, have demands that Iran not develop its own nuclear capabilities achieved anything? And in North Korea, have we not learned that even exorbitant amounts of money have failed to buy back or destroy weapons and capabilities that took years to develop?

—Ulrike Siddiqi, Honolulu, Hawaii

Najum Mushtaq responds:

Why shouldn’t Pakistan keep nuclear weapons? Because all the major reasons for keeping them—deterrence, national pride, and low-cost “minimum deterrence”—have proved wrong. During the 1999 Kargil conflict, it became abundantly clear that having nuclear weapons would not deter Indian aggression. Estimates of Pakistani casualties vary from 2,000 to 4,000. The humiliation of an unseemly retreat did little to furbish Pakistan’s image as a “responsible member of the nuclear club.” Nor has it proved cheaper to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent, as compared to boosting conventional forces. Pakistan’s defense budget has gone up significantly every year since the 1998 nuclear tests.

Similarly, it is flawed to say that maintaining a nuclear weapons infrastructure serves as “an educational tool for the country and its elite, helping it to compete with world-class technical and scientific standards,” to quote Ms. Siddiqi. As one eminent Pakistani physicist has said: "Genuine science in Pakistan has actually shrunk, not grown, over the last three decades.”.Rather than investing in the abysmally under-developed and substandard science education and introducing the use of technology in daily life, Pakistan has spent untold and unaccounted for billions of dollars in making weapons that are of no use in war or peace.

The claim that going nuclear has strengthened Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence also sounds hollow, given the direct involvement of the Pentagon through assistance programs to build the capacity of the Pakistani army to ensure safety of the nuclear weapons.

—Najum Mushtaq, Nairobi, Kenya

Right Web encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightwebfeedback@publiceye.org. PRA reserves the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Zalmay Khalilzad is Donald Trump’s special representative to the Afghan peace process, having previously served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush.


Robert Joseph played a key role in manipulating U.S. intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq and today is a lobbyist for the MEK.


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.


Elliott Abrams, the Trump administration’s special envoy to Venezuela, is a neoconservative with a long record of hawkish positions and actions, including lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair.


Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump second secretary of state, has driven a hawkish foreign policy in Iran and Latin America.


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


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


RightWeb
share