Right Web

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

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an influential advocacy group whose mission is to “ensure that both America and Israel remain strong and that they collaborate closely together.” AIPAC is regarded as a driving force of “America’s pro-Israel lobby.”

Although it states that it “receives no financial assistance from Israel” AIPAC generally promotes the policy objectives of the government in power in Israel. This has led critics to bemoan its undue influence on Washington, arguing that what is best for Israel is not necessarily what is best for the United States.

Both liberal and conservative politicians actively court the group. Boasting about the group’s clout, former AIPAC lobbyist Steven J. Rosen reportedly once slipped a napkin to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg and quipped, “You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”[1]

Although AIPAC suffered some setbacks during the Obama presidency, the election of Donald Trump has led right-wing “pro-Isarel” factions to expect it to deliver “messianic outcomes for Israel,” as one Israeli newspaper reports. AIPAC has at times had strained relations with the former real estate mogul. During the 2016 presidential campaign, AIPAC’s annual conference was overshadowed when Trump got a huge ovation after arguing that President Barack Obama “may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me.” The speech prompted AIPAC to issue an apology the following day.

Observers have noted AIPAC’s financial connections with hard-right neoconservative groups like the Center for Security Policy that have been key backers of controversial Trump policies, like his executive orders banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Wrote one journalist: “AIPAC’s willingness to partner with an organization whose president, Frank Gaffney, was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Conservative Union … raises serious questions about AIPAC’s commitment to fighting bigotry, discrimination, and, in particular, Islamophobia.”

“Recent Setbacks 

In 2013 and 2014, AIPAC suffered a series of high-profile defeats that led some observers to question whether the group would retain its influence in coming years. Notably, after failing to marshal support for a U.S. military strike on Syria and to head off renewed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 powers, AIPAC was forced to back down from its 2013-2014 bid to pass new Iran sanctions legislation while talks were underway after failing to persuade enough Democrats. Critics in and outside of government accused the bill’s supporters of trying to sink the negotiations and foment a war. “AIPAC and other hard-line groups remain a potent force in guaranteeing generous U.S. aid to Israel and hamstringing U.S. efforts to achieve a two-state solution,” said Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, “but their clout declines when they advocate a course of action that could lead to another Middle East war.”[2]

AIPAC faced another setback in mid-2014, when their efforts to add a stipulation into a bill in Congress that would allow Israelis to enter the United States without a visa—while not requiring the same of Israel for U.S. citizens—was met with criticism and ultimately failed. One observer noted that the proposed AIPAC provision “raised a lot of hackles on Capitol Hill, even in some offices that are very AIPAC-friendly.”[3]

In particular, support for the group seemed to be slipping among many of the otherwise liberal-leaning Jewish voters who had traditionally provided the backbone of its support. “Today, a growing number of American Jews, though still devoted to Israel, struggle with the lack of progress toward peace with the Palestinians. Many feel that AIPAC does not speak for them,” reported The New Yorker in a lengthy 2014 profile.[4]

Noting AIPAC’s increasing alienation from important constituencies and increasing reliance on evangelical Christians and Republicans, journalist Jim Lobe wrote in August 2014: “Liberal Zionists—who undoubtedly constitute a majority of American Jews (who in turn constitute a major source of political campaign funding for Democrats)—face a choice between their Zionism, as defined by Netanyahu and AIPAC, on the one hand and their liberal values on the other. The two appear to have become mutually exclusive.”[5]


Iran has long been a key target of AIPAC’s lobbying efforts. The group claims on its website that “Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability. Through its proxy armies of Hizballah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Iranian regime is supporting terrorists that have carried out attacks on American troops and Israeli civilians.”[6]

AIPAC has been a leader in efforts to thwart diplomatic progress over Iran’s nuclear program, instead promoting ever-tighter sanctions on the country. In a June 2012 “Issue Memo” titled “While the World Talks, Iran Enriches; More Pressure Needed,” AIPAC argued that the then on-going talks between Iran and the U.N. Security Council and Germany (P5+1) were failing to produce results and that “crippling economic sanctions must be accelerated to prevent Tehran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.” The memo also dismissed any consideration of “containing” Iran and added that “the United States must make clear that it will prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will not be allowed to acquire the capability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing.”[7]

In the months leading up to the successful conclusion of a comprehensive deal between Iran and the P5+1, AIPAC spent a record amount of money lobbying Congress to pass legislation giving members of Congress the ability to review any final agreement. A July 2015 Washington Post article stated: “The $1.67 million that AIPAC spent so far this year is more than the group has ever spent on direct lobbying during a six-month period—at least in the last 16 years.”[8]

After the diplomatic agreement was announced, AIPAC released a statement denouncing it and vowing to fight to overturn it in Congress: “After more than 20 months of negotiations, the United States and its negotiating partners announced a nuclear agreement with Iran. Throughout the negotiations, AIPAC outlined five critical criteria for a good deal. Unfortunately, the proposed agreement is fundamentally flawed in each of these vital areas. Urge your senators and representative to oppose the agreement.”[9]

Even as the nuclear agreement became international law in late July 2015 by way of a U.N. Security Council resolution, AIPAC declared it would launch an all-out effort to lobby Congress to pass veto-proof legislation scuttling the deal. “In the coming weeks, AIPAC will mobilize the entirety of our institutional resources in order to articulate our concerns about the agreement and secure a broad bipartisan vote in Congress to oppose the deal,” read an email AIPAC sent to its top members and donors after the deal was reached.[10]

In July 2015, AIPAC created a tax-exempt lobbying group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI), to bolster its efforts to lobby against the nuclear deal. According to the new group’s spokesperson, Patrick Dorton, CNFI was founded to educate the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal.” Reported the New York Times: “A person who had been briefed on the plan said the group planned to spend upward of $20 million on the effort. Another person familiar with the campaign said advertising was planned in 30 to 40 states.”[11]

CNFI’s advisory committee consisted of a number of former hawkish Democratic members of Congress, including former Sens. Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Joseph Lieberman (CT), and former Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV).[12] Commented The Nation: “It’s sort of a remarkable list when you look at it. I mean, it’s obvious why AIPAC picked them, they’re the most stalwart-like traditionally pro-Israel figures that have come off the Hill in recent years.”[13]

A July 2015 Nelson Report newsletter quoted a “former AIPAC official” about the reasons the lobby is so heavily invested in persuading Congress to reject the Iran deal. Among the reasons were that “Iran has been an enormously lucrative fundraiser for AIPAC” and that “without this cause AIPAC and this Israeli government” may have to “focus on more critical issue [sic], like peace with the Palestinians.”[14]

The former AIPAC official added: “Iran has been the group’s raison d’être for two decades and it doesn’t know what else to do; its troops are trained to attack Iran and the lobby can’t afford to admit failure lest it lose supporters.”[15]

An AIPAC executive stated that AIPAC’s opposition to the Iran deal is “good for business” and that the group is “terrified they’re going to lose their major fund-raising appeal” if the Iran issue gets resolved. This led one reporter to write that it “appears that AIPAC, which, after calling for careful study of the JCPOA, urged Congress to reject it just over 24 hours later, may see the deal’s survival as an ‘existential threat’ to … itself, more than anything else.”[16]

AIPAC supported imposing additional sanctions on Iran even as the negotiations were making headway in late 2013, when the P5+1 powers—including the United States—reached an interim agreement that would see Iran restrict its enrichment activities in exchange for minor sanctions relief while a final agreement was negotiated.

A November 2013 AIPAC memo acknowledged that the agreement did limit Iran’s abilities to enrich, the lobby complained that Iran was allowed to enrich uranium at all and called for Congress to preemptively pass new sanctions in the event the agreement failed.[17] That same month, the hawkish “pro-Israel” Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) revealed that he was working with AIPAC and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). to push new sanctions even as talks were underway, defying calls from the Obama administration to give the talks a chance.[18] The Kirk-Menendez sanctions package ultimately floundered after AIPAC failed to muster enough Democrats to secure a veto-proof majority and Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to bring the bill to the floor.[19]

In March 2014, as the annual AIPAC policy conference was underway in Washington, Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD)—both reliable AIPAC allies—circulated a letter among their colleagues saying that while they “do not seek to deny Iran a peaceful nuclear energy program,” they were concerned that “Iran will use prolonged negotiations as a tool to secure an economic lifeline while it continues to make progress towards a nuclear weapon.”[20]

Describing the letter as “AIPAC-approved,” the Inter Press Service[21] noted that while the letter was “a bit more congenial than” the Kirk-Menendez approach in that it did not propose specific new sanctions, its not-too-subtle nod to military action “naturally raises hackles and strengthens hardliners in Tehran.”[22]

In the lead up to the November 2014 deadline for an agreement to be reached in negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, AIPAC voiced support for a letter sent by Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) to Secretary of State John Kerry which, according to AIPAC’s website, emphasized “the need to full understand Iran’s past nuclear weaponization efforts as part of any final agreement.”[23] LobeLog contributor Peter Jenkins wrote that the Royce-Engel letter contained “many distortions of the truth.” Regarding the letter’s claim that “it’s not a hard proposition” for Iran to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, Jenkins opined: “Actually it’s a very hard proposition to prove. How can a state ’prove’ that it does not have some small secret fissile material production facility somewhere on its territory? That is why the IAEA is never ready to offer more than ‘credible assurances’ that a given nuclear program is truly peaceful.”[24]

Among the key sanctions AIPAC has promoted in recent years was the 2009 House-passed Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which according the Congressional Research Service could prevent the United States “from providing credit, insurance, or guarantees to any project controlled by any energy producers or refiners that contribute significantly to Iran’s refined petroleum resources.”[25]

According to AIPAC, the bill represented “landmark sanctions legislation that would reinforce American diplomatic efforts with Iran with the threat of tougher sanctions if Iran rejects U.S. overtures and continues to enrich uranium.”[26] However, other observers countered that the bill would “hurt the Iranian people while having little effect on the leadership [the] sanctions are supposed to put pressure on; undermine the Obama administration’s attempts at engagement with Iran under a multilateral negotiating framework; and isolate the U.S. by antagonizing crucial allies in the UN Security Council.”[27]


Another key AIPAC target has been Syria, which the lobby views as a threat to Israel, in part because of Syrian support for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. After the start of the opposition uprising in 2011, AIPAC released a number of issue memos lambasting the Syrian regime for committing human rights abuses and supporting terrorism. Although it steered clear of calling for direct U.S. military engagement, the lobby pressed for increased sanctions on the country.

A July 2011 issue memo called for tightening sanctions and international pressure. “The United States must hold Syria accountable for its destructive behavior and fully implement sanctions on Damascus as authorized under the Syria Accountability Act,” it said. “The Treasury Department should sanction Syrian banks and businesses facilitating Damascus’ illicit activities.”[28]

By September 2013, AIPAC was unabashedly supporting a U.S. strike on the country, launching a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill aimed at convincing U.S. lawmakers to authorize an attack and warning that any failure to act would embolden Iran.[29] Connecting AIPAC’s interest in the Syrian civil war to its position on Iran, AIPAC critic MJ Rosenberg argued that “AIPAC joined the battle to win Congressional approval because resolving the Syria crisis through any means other than war would set a terrible precedent for Iran: resolving the Iran nuclear issue diplomatically.” But with U.S. popular opinion deeply opposed to U.S. involvement in the war, Rosenberg noted that “AIPAC’s big lobbying day for war with Syria changed no votes. Not one.”[30]

AIPAC had stepped up its campaign against Syria many years before the uprising began. Shortly after President George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq in May 2003, AIPAC began pushing for passage of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act,which allowed for U.S. sanctions against Syria.

The move stirred rumors that the Bush administration was contemplating “regime change” in Syria following its invasion of Iraq. Reported the Deutsche Presse-Agentur in November 2003, “In his speech this month about the need for the Middle Eastern countries to move toward democracy, U.S. President George W. Bush won some praise but his words were also met with apprehension among Arab countries in the region. The basis for such worries was that Bush’s speech was preceded by suggestions from the so-called neoconservatives. They were the spearhead of the drive that led to the invasion of Iraq. For example, one of them, Richard Perle , chairman of the Defense Policy Board, talked (while in Israel) about the Syrian government’s failure to stop infiltration of guerrillas into Iraq. He coupled that with the observation that Syria’s military strength was feeble. This occurred at the same time that the Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was using its muscle on the U.S. Congress to pass the Syria Accountability Act. This would impose U.S. sanctions on Syria unless Syria ended its occupation of parts of Lebanon, cut its ties to Palestinian groups the United States regards as terrorists, and stopped its alleged development of chemical and biological weapons.”[31]

In an October 2009 policy brief, AIPAC argued that despite the sanctions that had been imposed since passage of the Syria Accountability Act, little had changed.It also criticized the Obama administration’s efforts at negotiation, stating: “While the Obama administration has renewed sanctions imposed under the Syria Accountability Act, it also has sought to improve relations between Washington and Damascus through a series of high-level visits to Syria that have largely focused on persuading Syria to clamp down on the influx into Iraq of foreign fighters who have directly contributed to the instability of the new Iraqi government and the deaths of American soldiers.”[32]

The Influence of the “Israel Lobby”

The apparent ability of the “Israel Lobby” to influence the direction of U.S. policy has been hotly debated for years, particularly since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as many key champions of the war in the Bush administration—including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—seemed to be motivated by their views on Israeli security. However, many elements of the lobby—including inside AIPAC—were not immediately supportive of the neoconservative desire to go to war with Iraq.

In their hotly contested 2006 paper on the lobby, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt emphasized the influence of neoconservatives within it. They wrote: “Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq War than the population at large, 52% to 62%.’ Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence.’ Rather, the war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.”[33]

But as the Washington Post‘s Glenn Frankel reported, AIPAC “took no official position on the merits of going to war in Iraq. But, like the Israeli government, once it was clear that the Bush administration was determined to go to war, AIPAC cheered from the sidelines, bestowing sustained ovations on an array of administration officials at its April 2003 annual conference and on Bush himself when he attended the following year.”[34]

Few would dispute the influence of groups like AIPAC and its spinoff, the Washington Institute for Near Policy. However, analysts who criticize this influence are often accused of anti-Semitism, as was the case with Walt and Mearsheimer when they released their working paper. Remarks made by Alan Dershowitz, the well-known lawyer and Harvard professor, were typical of much of the criticism. Dershowitz lambasted the paper as being full of “bigoted comments” and that it had the “the smell of singling out Jews and singling out Israel.”[35]

The two authors foresaw the criticism, arguing in the paper: “No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy—an influence that AIPAC celebrates—stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby.’ In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti-Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.”[36]

According to some estimates, there are about 500 national and local organizations that collectively make up the Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most weight—Newt Gingrich once called it “the most effective general interest group over the entire planet.” As Walt and Mearsheimer reported: “In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings.'”[37]

AIPAC lists “preparing the next generation of pro-Israel leaders” as one of its goals, casting its net far beyond Jewish circles. “In the last few years, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has broadly expanded beyond its Jewish membership base reaching out to Hispanics, African-Americans, and Christian activists,” reported the Religion News Service.[38]

On AIPAC’s diverse array of supporters, Walt and Mearsheimer reported: “The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives. They believe Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will. In addition, the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will.”[39]

AIPAC and Iraq

Extremely active in securing weapons deals for Israel, in lobbying for sanctions against the country’s Middle East rivals, and in promoting the political agenda of whatever government happens to be in power in Israel, AIPAC has long played a highly public role in American policymaking in the Middle East. It has also been active in pushing U.S. intervention in the region.

AIPAC was in the thick of things during the lead up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to press reports, AIPAC membership jumped nearly 50 percent, to some 70,000, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in part through ties the group had made with the Christian Right, which reflected a key strategy promoted by many neoconservatives and foreign policy hardliners during the 1990s. In late 2002, as talk about war heated up in Washington, AIPAC held a “national summit” in Atlanta to discuss the possible war and to strategize with supporters. Among the conference speakers were Wolfowitz, Tom Ridge, and Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition.[40]

AIPAC’s efforts to persuade U.S. lawmakers to go after Iraq date back to the first Gulf War. In an interview shortly after the 1991 Gulf War began, Thomas Dine, then president of AIPAC, told the Wall Street Journal that his organization had been busy behind the scenes building support for the war. “Yes, we were active,” said Dine. “These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice.”[41]

According to press reports, in 1990 alone pro-Israel groups gave nearly $8 million in campaign contributions. Of those on the Democratic side of the aisle who received PAC cash and later supported the decision to go to war was Sen. Harry Reid, who had received $150,000 from pro-Israel PACs during his Senate election bid. A dozen years later, in 2002, Reid again supported the use of force against Iraq. Other Democrats who voted for the 1991 Gulf War resolution and received lobby cash included Sen. Richard Bryan of Nevada and Sen. Howard Heflin of Alabama. According to the Wall Street Journal, the entire Alabama delegations in both the House and Senate voted for the resolution. Although at first glance “this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro-military character of the state,” opined the Journal, it is clear that “pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats [in the state] in recent years.”[42]

A key AIPAC supporter at the time who actively worked to get congressmen on board the Gulf War resolution was Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY). Solarz, who later became a supporter of various Project for the New American Century (PNAC) initiatives (he signed the notorious September 20, 2001 PNAC letter calling for war against Iraq “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack”), personally lobbied Sen. Al Gore, who voted for the resolution, as well as several other fence-sitters among the Democrats, whom Solarz accused of being “tragically shortsighted” in their view of the Israeli-American relationship. Solarz also pushed AIPAC to play a more public role in supporting the use of force, as well as several other pro-Israel lobbies, including the Reform Jewish Movement.[43]

Once the first Gulf War was under way, AIPAC set about capitalizing on the growing U.S. public support for Israel in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s Scud missile attacks on Israel. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), by the end of January 1991, AIPAC had rushed off a letter to its supporters outlining a post-war campaign. Reported WRMEA: “Counting on the American public’s newfound understanding of Israel’s vulnerability, AIPAC will press for a new package of security aid for Israel far larger than any previous package. Second, the lobby will encourage the United States to strengthen its friendship with Israel and avoid ‘pandering toward Arab states hostile to the West and Israel.’ Third, it will request millions of dollars more in housing loan guarantees to settle Soviet Jews. And finally, it will work to ensure that any diplomatic efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict will be based on ‘close cooperation and trust between the United States and Israel.'”[44]

Arming Israel

AIPAC has also lobbied heavily for U.S. funding of various Israeli weapons programs, including Israel’s Arrow missile defense system, which AIPAC has described as “among the world’s most sophisticated missile shields.”[45]

After the Senate voted in 2002 to include money for the Arrow system and other Israeli military priorities in a defense spending bill, AIPAC proudly reported, “In a vote of 95-3, the Senate last week passed the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill, which provides substantial funding for U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation. The Arrow Missile Defense Program received $80 million above the administration’s request for a total of $146 million. Additional funding includes the following: $23.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser; $64.9 million for the Litening II Targeting Pod; $35 million for Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles; $22 million for the Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; and $20 million for the Improved Tactical Air-Launched Decoy.”[46]

Several high-profile Bush administration officials have had financial interests in many of the weapons systems pushed by AIPAC, including Jay Garner, the former “mayor of Baghdad.” Garner is a past president of SY Coleman Technology, which produced parts for the Arrow missile system. Garner also has strong ties to the neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Walt and Mearsheimer highlighted U.S. support for Israel’s weapons procurement as one of the many signs of the many “special deals” the pro-Israel lobby has helped the country seal. “The United States has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need, while giving Israel access to top-drawer U.S. weaponry like Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the United States gives Israel access to intelligence that it denies its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye toward Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”[47]

More recently, AIPAC has been a leading proponent of U.S. funding for Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system, a joint U.S.-Israeli project putatively designed to shield Israel from rocket attacks launched from the Palestinian territories. Although the effectiveness of the expensive program has been repeatedly questioned, AIPAC has credited it with “saving countless civilian lives.”[48] As Congress contemplated budget cuts to defense and foreign aid programs in early 2013, AIPAC mobilized to protect Israel’s line items, including the Iron Dome system. “During a period of mounting threats to American interests in the region and to our critical ally, Israel, this is no time to reduce critical assistance which would only result in greater and graver costs,” said an AIPAC spokesperson quoted by the Jerusalem Post.[49]

The following year, during Israel’s 2014 war on Gaza, AIPAC lobbied intensively for an emergency $225-miillion supplement in U.S. funds for Iron Dome. “The worst part was having to vote for this at a time we are all so upset by the killing in Gaza,” said a Republican Senate aide. “It’s as if AIPAC knows how angry we are so the whole Senate has to take their test. They will make us cast a totally symbolic vote, just to show who’s in charge. It’s so telling that the only issue we come together with Democrats is on an AIPAC vote. We don’t even come together on our wars, when our soldiers are in the field. The senator was sick about it.”[50]

Lawrence Franklin Controversy

Normally operating behind the scenes in political and lobbyist orbits, AIPAC was forced into the public spotlight over a controversy involving two of its (now former) employees that erupted in 2005.

In May 2005, the FBI arrested Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst, for disclosing government secrets. According to an FBI affidavit, Franklin shared information about possible attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq with AIPAC staffers Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman during an FBI-monitored lunch in June 2003. Franklin was allegedly upset that his hardline stance on Iran was being overlooked, and he hoped AIPAC would be able to attract attention to his views. According to the New York Times, supporters of an “influential circle in the Pentagon” (whose members have long-standing ties to AIPAC and were leading advocates for war in Iraq) blame the FBI’s investigation on “the continuing struggle inside the administration over intelligence.”[51]

Several months after Franklin’s arrest, the Department of Justice issued an indictment against Rosen and Weissman. According to the indictment, the pair passed the information Franklin gave them to a journalist and an Israeli diplomat, leading to charges that they had conspired to violate the 1917 Espionage Act.

Although Franklin pleaded guilty to his charges and was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison, Rosen and Weissman were never prosecuted. In May 2009, the Justice Department asked that charges against the two be dropped, citing court decisions that would have forced disclosure of classified information and reduced the likelihood of successful prosecution.[52]

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.


[1] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Real Insiders,” New Yorker, July 4, 2005, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/07/04/real-insiders.

[2] Jim Lobe, “Top Israel Lobby Group Loses Battle on Iran, But War Not Over,” Inter Press Service, January 24, 2014, https://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/top_israel_lobby_group_loses_battle_on_iran_but_war_not_over.

[3] Mitchell Plitnick, “A Poison Pill for AIPAC,” Lobelog, September 15, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/a-poison-pill-for-aipac/.

[4] Connie Bruck, “Friends of Israel,” New Yorker, September 1, 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel.

[5] Jim Lobe, “AIPAC’s Problems,” LobeLog, August 29, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/aipacs-problems/.

[6] AIPAC, “Issues: Iran,” https://web.archive.org/web/20120424200313/http://www.aipac.org/en/issues/issue-display?issueid=%7B1A989C8D-72FF-41B7-9A4B-02067A73CAD3%7D.

[7] AIPAC, “While the World Talks, Iran Enriches; More Pressure Needed,” June 1, 2012,http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2012/06/AIPAC%20Memo%20While%20the%20World%20Talks%20Iran%20Enriches.pdf.

[8] Catherine Ho, “AIPAC spent record $1.7 million as it lobbied Congress to review Iran deal,” The Washington Post, July 20, 2015,http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/aipacs-lobbying-spending-spikes-as-group-pushes-hard-to-oppose-iran-deal/.

[9] Jessica Schulberg, “AIPAC Drops Pretense of Supporting Iran Deal, Urges Congress to Vote it Down,” The Huffington Post, July 15, 2015,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/15/aipac-reject-iran-deal_n_7804820.html.

[10] Jewish Press, “AIPAC Mulling ‘Nuclear Option’ in Lobbying Against Iran Deal,” July 20, 2015, http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/aipac-mulling-nuclear-option-in-lobbying-against-iran-deal/2015/07/20/2/.

[11] Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Pro-Israel Aipac Creates Group to Lobby Against the Iran Deal,” The New York Times, July 17, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/17/pro-israel-aipac-creates-group-to-lobby-against-the-iran-deal/.

[12] Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Pro-Israel Aipac Creates Group to Lobby Against the Iran Deal,” The New York Times, July 17, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/17/pro-israel-aipac-creates-group-to-lobby-against-the-iran-deal/.

[13] All In with Chris Hayes, “Iraq War proponents campaign against Iran Deal,” MSNBC, July 21, 2015, http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/iraq-war-proponents-against-iran-deal-488888387631.

[14] Jim Lobe, “Former AIPAC Official on Iran’s Importance to AIPAC,” LobeLog, July 25, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/former-aipac-official-on-irans-importance-to-aipac/.

[15] Jim Lobe, “Former AIPAC Official on Iran’s Importance to AIPAC,” LobeLog, July 25, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/former-aipac-official-on-irans-importance-to-aipac/.

[16] Jim Lobe, “Follow-up on AIPAC and Iran Deal,” LobeLog, July 26, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/follow-up-on-aipac-and-iran-deal/.

[17] Josh Gerstein, ” AIPAC urges new Iran sanctions,” Politico, November 25, 2013, http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/11/aipac-urges-new-iran-sanctions-178352.html.

[18] Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib, “GOP senator unloads in private call,” Salon, November 21, 2013,http://www.salon.com/2013/11/21/exclusive_gop_senator_unloads_in_private_call/.

[19] Jim Lobe, “Top Israel Lobby Group Loses Battle on Iran, But War Not Over,” Inter Press Service, January 24, 2014, https://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/top_israel_lobby_group_loses_battle_on_iran_but_war_not_over.

[20] Jim Lobe, “Here’s the AIPAC-Approved House Version of Iran Letter to Obama,” LobeLog, March 3, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/heres-the-aipac-approved-house-version-of-letter-to-obama/.

[21] Jim Lobe, “Blackballed By AIPAC?” LobeLog, February 28, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/blackballed-by-aipac/.

[22] Jim Lobe, “Here’s the AIPAC-Approved House Version of Iran Letter to Obama,” LobeLog, March 3, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/heres-the-aipac-approved-house-version-of-letter-to-obama/.

[23] AIPAC, “Strengthen Iran Policy,” http://www.aipac.org/learn/legislative-agenda/agenda-display?agendaid=.

[24] Peter Jenkins, “Royce/Engel Iran Letter: The Devil Lies in the Detail,” LobeLog, September 18th, 2014, http://www.lobelog.com/royce-engel-iran-letter-the-devil-lies-in-the-detail/.

[25] Eli Clifton, “US: One Step Closer to Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran,” Inter Press Service, December 9, 2009, http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/12/us-one-step-closer-to-unilateral-sanctions-against-iran/.

[26] AIPAC, “Take Action: Pass Tougher Iran Sanctions,” https://web.archive.org/web/20100210064406/http://www.aipac.org/694.asp.

[27] Eli Clifton, “US: One Step Closer to Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran,” Inter Press Service, December 9, 2009, http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/12/us-one-step-closer-to-unilateral-sanctions-against-iran/.

[28] AIPAC, “Toughen Syrian Sanctions Now,” July 20, 2011,http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2011/07/AIPAC%20Memo%20-%20Toughen%20Syria%20Sanctions%20Now.pdf.

[29] Manu Raju, ” AIPAC to go all-out on Syria,” Politico, September 5, 2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/aipac-syria-96344.html.

[30] MJ Rosenberg, “The AIPAC Collapse,” MJayRosenberg.com, September 2013, http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=855aabd7ccd7a77e987004677&id=c76c952fc3&e=8108fff07f.

[31] “Was Syria Next on the U.S. List?” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, November 14, 2003.

[32] AIPAC, “Is Syria Ready for Peace?” October 6, 2009, http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesIssueBriefs/Syria.pdf

[33] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, March 2006,http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.

[34] Glenn Frankel, “A Beautiful Friendship?” Washington Post, July 16, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627.html.

[35] Glenn Frankel, “A Beautiful Friendship?” Washington Post, July 16, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627.html.

[36] Glenn Frankel, “A Beautiful Friendship?” Washington Post, July 16, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627.html.

[37] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, March 2006,http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.

[38] Rachel Pomerance, “Pro-Israel Lobby Seeks Christian, Campus Allies to Broaden its Base,” Religion News Service, March 10, 2006,http://www.religionnews.com/2006/03/11/pro-israel-lobby-seeks-christian-campus-allies-to-broaden-its-base/.

[39] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, March 2006,http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.

[40] Chicago Independent Media Center, “Shut Down AIPAC’s National Summit!” October 2002,http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive/newswire/display/12866/index.php.

[41] “Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991.

[42] “Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991.

[43] “Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991.

[44] Andrea Barron, “AIPAC Not Taking Improved US Israel Relations For Granted,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,” March 1991,http://www.wrmea.org/1991-march/jews-and-israel.html.

[45] AIPAC, “Issue: Missile Defense,” http://www.aipac.org/learn/us-and-israel/military-partnership/missile-defense.

[46] Quoted by Anthony Gancarski, “AIPAC, Congress and Iraq,” Counterpunch, August 8, 2002, http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/08/08/aipac-congress-and-iraq/.

[47] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, March 2006,http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.

[48] AIPAC, “Issue: Missile Defense,” http://www.aipac.org/learn/us-and-israel/military-partnership/missile-defense.

[49] Niv Elis, “Steinitz: Israel is worried by US sequester,” Jerusalem Post, March 3, 2013, http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Steinitz-Israel-is-worried-by-US-sequester.

[50] M.J. Rosenberg, “AIPAC’s Phony Iron Dome Vote,” Media With Conscience, August 6, 2014, http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/44356-iron-dome-vote.html.

[51] David Johnston and Eric Lichtblau, “Analyst Charged with Disclosing Military Secrets,” New York Times, May 5, 2005.

[52] Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston, “U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists,” New York Times, May 1, 2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html?_r=0.

Share RightWeb

American Israel Public Affairs Committee Résumé

Contact Information
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(202) 639-5200


“AIPAC is a 100,000-member grassroots movement of activists committed to ensuring Israel’s security and protecting American interests in the Middle East and around the world. AIPAC’s priority is to ensure that both America and Israel remain strong and that they collaborate closely together.”


American Israel Public Affairs Committee News Feed

Unpacking What The American Israel Public Affairs Committee Does - NPRWhat the controversy over Ilhan Omar’s tweets tells us about AIPAC today - The Washington PostCongressman Tom McClintock Spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Luncheon in Sacramento - Sierra Sun TimesHow (and How Not) to Talk About the Israel Lobby - Foreign PolicyWhat's Next For Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel Following 'El Chapo's' Guilty Verdict - WBFODem congresswoman ignites anti-Semitic controversy - CNNVenezuela's President Maduro Has Surprising Allies In Opposition To U.S. Involvement - WKMSTrump: Ilhan Omar Should Resign From House or Foreign Affairs Committee Over Controversial Israel Tweets - The Daily BeastThe Schism Is Finally Here - Jacobin magazineDem rep hopes Omar can be 'mentored,' remain on Foreign Affairs panel | TheHill - The HillAnti-BDS bill advanced by Senate, U.S.-Israel security ties boosted - The Jerusalem PostPro-Israel donors spent over $22m on lobbying and contributions in 2018 - The GuardianAll Zionist roads lead to genocide - Al Jazeera EnglishProminent Democrats Form Pro-Israel Group to Counter Skepticism on the Left - The New York TimesThe War on BDS: How Israel's Agenda Became a US Priority - Mintpress NewsStop obsessing over these three freshman congresswomen - The Washington PostIlhan Omar gets a coveted spot on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and House Republicans slam Democrats - Cleveland Jewish NewsNew US spending bill includes $200m increase in defense aid to Israel - The Times of IsraelOur view: Stupid actions, words come from all over - Grand Forks HeraldNo crisis between Poland and Israel over Holocaust record, Polish president says - JTA News

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

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.