Right Web

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

Israel after the NIE; Sheldon Adelson; Laurent Murawiec; Fred Thompson; and John Isaacs on "Mis

FEATURED ARTICLE

Iran and Israel, after the NIE
By Bill Berkowitz

A familiar clutch of hardliners in Israel and the United States are campaigning to diminish the impact of last year’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which concluded that Tehran had halted its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Pundits and officials who were eager to see the Bush administration take military action against Iran now suggest that the NIE will force Israel to pursue that option alone. Read full story.

FEATURED PROFILES

Sheldon Adelson
The sixth wealthiest person on Earth supports the Iraq War and opposes negotiations between Israel and Palestine. U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has donated millions to various causes, including hawkish Freedom’s Watch.

Laurent Murawiec
The Hudson Institute fellow favors assassination as a method of deterring Islamic radicals. Fred Thompson
The well-known Law & Order actor and former American Enterprise Institute fellow dropped out of the 2008 presidential contest in January after poor showings in early primaries.

ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB

Pentagon Brass Fear Iraq Troop Strain
By Jim Lobe

With U.S. military power stretched thin, Bush’s obsession with Iraq carries serious consequences for the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Read full story.

LETTERS

Re: John Isaacs, “Congress and National Security in 2007,” Right Web, December 28, 2007.

Thanks very much for John Isaacs’ update on Congress and nuclear-related issues. I’d like to offer two comments. First, in glossing Congress’ failure to stop the Iraq War, Isaacs writes as if the Senate’s ability to block legislation via the 60-vote mechanism and Bush’s veto threat were dispositive. As others have pointed out, all Congress would have to do is decline to introduce legislation to fund the war. There may be arguments on both sides of that procedure, but we shouldn’t speak or think as if it isn’t available. That lets Congress off the hook too easily.

Regarding missile “defense,” Isaacs writes as if the primary problem is the fact the so-called shield has not been made workable. However, I have read that missile “defense” can never hope to shoot down enough incoming missiles to be workable, and that the real purpose of the plan-understood by the United States and Russia but very hard for the public to hear about-is as a first-strike weapon: that the “shield” would facilitate effectiveness of a first-strike because it could conceivably (from the mad perspective in which this would play out) shoot down enough of a retaliatory strike to be effective, once a first-strike had disabled much of the target’s offensive capability. This seems to me plausible. I think it’s important to work it into the debate because a weapons system that simply hasn’t worked yet can be tested indefinitely, while one recognized as a first-strike system could generate more public opposition. Thanks again.

-Robert Roth

John Isaacs Responds

Robert Roth—thanks for your note. The only way we are going to stop the war is if 60 Senators are willing to vote for a deadline, or, more likely, a new president takes over in 2009 and ends it. You are technically correct that Congress could cut off funding immediately. However, the congressional votes have reflected the American public’s ambivalence about what to do next in Iraq. Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and support a timetable for withdrawal, but only 17 percent support removing all U.S. troops from Iraq as rapidly as possible, beginning now. A majority of Congress—including many Democrats—simply will not defund the war, reflecting the views of their constituents. Rather than denounce Democrats for not stopping the war, you might point the finger at us, the American people, who do not support an immediate end to the war, as well as all the groups working to end the war promptly that have not convinced the public to take that position.

As for the second question, I never have and never will believe in the concept of a first strike of nuclear weapons. That is the notion that either we, or the old Soviet Union, could fire many hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads and be absolutely confident that we would destroy or even significantly limit another country’s retaliatory capacity. The same holds true for missile defense; there is no evidence that it ever was or ever will be so leak-proof that we could strike first with nuclear weapons and be confident that our missile defense will ward off sufficient retaliatory attacks to avoid devastation in return. Furthermore, submarine-launched nuclear missiles could not be disarmed in a first strike, since the United States could never find and destroy all Russian submarines simultaneously. Missile defense, even if perfectly operational, would not stop a retaliatory strike from submarines, which are capable of nearing the continental United States before attacking with hundreds of missiles per vessel. American and Russian nuclear arsenals have historically employed the strategic triad—land missiles, sea missiles, and bombers—to ensure this exact type of indestructible retaliatory capability, and missile defense will do nothing to change it. In short, a first nuclear strike is nuclear suicide for both the attacking and the retaliating countries.

—John Isaacs

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 and location. Thank you.

If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email rightweb@irc-online.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”

–>

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