Right Web

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

Graham Turns To Iran Hawks For Campaign Funding

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) super PAC consists of a donor base of hawkish “Jewish conservatives,” who Graham appears to believe that in order to appeal to he must derail the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

LobeLog

Last time I wrote about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) impending presidential campaign, Graham was feeding anti-Semitic tropes over a glass of Riesling, telling the Wall Street Journal that he “may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding.”

So who are the targets of his fundraising efforts?

Alex Lazar, a reporter at the Center for Responsive Politics, has highlighted the potential donor base of “Jewish conservatives” behind West Main Street Values, a super PAC set up to support Graham’s 2014 Senate campaign. Donors included former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Lazar continued:

Two individuals to keep an eye on from this list going forward are Larry Mizel and Sam Fox. Fox, a former ambassador to Belgium during the George W. Bush administration, gave $50,000 to the super PAC. Mizel, a Colorado businessman, ponied up double that amount at $100,000.

Mizel is also chairman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group; aboard member on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the country’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group; and a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition(RJC) board of directors. Fox, for his part, is a former chairman of the RJC.”

But these aren’t Graham’s only monetary ties to the RJC’s board of directors.

The top contributors to Graham’s Senate campaign committee from 2009 to 2014 are firms and companies either based in South Carolina or with a significant manufacturing presence in his state. But his fifth largest source of campaign funds, Elliott Management, a New York City based hedge fund, has no clear ties to South Carolina. That didn’t stop Elliott employees from contributing $41,250 to Graham’s campaign committee.

The fund’s founder and CEO, billionaire Paul Singer, funds some of Washington’s biggest critics of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran, including organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Foundation for Defense of DemocraciesAIPAC and The Israel Project. He also helps bankroll the campaigns of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) who promised that taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities would only require “several days” of bombing.

Singer, who also serves on the RJC’s board, was rumored to be among Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) key fundraisers, but Singer’s camp denies that the reclusive billionaire is backing any one candidate.

Graham appears to believe that appealing to the minority of Jewish Americans who identify as Republican—29 percent according to a Gallup poll released earlier this year—requires working tooth and nail to derail diplomacy between the P5+1 and Iran, promising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, that “the Congress will follow your lead” in pushing the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill back in December.

Graham, who previously sought congressional authorization for a military attack on Iran, is now promoting his own “eight principles to ensure we get the right answers and achieve a sound, enforceable deal.”

(Oddly, as noted by the National Iranian American Council’s Ryan Costello, Graham’s first “principle” is that Iran “must not be allowed an enrichment capability greater than the practical needs to supply one commercial reactor.” But supplying such a reactor could actually mean an expansion in the number of operating centrifuges, unlike the Obama administration’s deal which would limit the number of centrifuges enriching uranium to 5,060 for 10 years.)

Graham told the Journal that he would need $15 million to enter the presidential race. His showboating on national security over the past months doesn’t seem to have hurt this effort. He is expected to declare his candidacy on June 1.

Graham may be challenging Rubio’s position as the most hawkish candidate in the GOP’s primary field and the recipient of millions of dollars in RJC-affiliated campaign contributions. Given his expected campaign kickoff next month, however, he may have already raised the required $15 million.

His emphasis on a hawkish national security agenda, his unconditional commitment to following Netanyahu’s lead on congressional opposition to an Iran deal, and his ongoing efforts to walk back the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran would suggest that Graham is looking to challenge Rubio’s grip on neoconservative campaign funding.

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