Right Web

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

The National Intelligence Estimate, Annapolis, and the Mideast Strategic-Consensus Fantasy; Clifford

FEATURED ARTICLE

The Mideast Strategic-Consensus Fantasy
By Leon Hadar

Despite the pending release of an intelligence report that would paint a much less menacing Iran,the United States used the Annapolis talks to push an old and discredited idea: that a perceived commonthreat—Shiite Iran—could bring together Arabs and Jews under an American umbrella and help create theconditions for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The staying power of this strategic fantasy, sharedby the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, attests to the influence of pro-Likud neoconservativeideologues on these two conservative Republican presidents. Readfull story.

SEE ALSO:

The NIE Bombshell
By Gareth Porter

The new national intelligence estimate on Iran throws into turmoil the campaign by the Bush administrationto take aggressive action against Iran. It also validates European arguments on the efficacy of negotiationsand the power of diplomacy. Read full story.

FEATURED PROFILES

Clifford May
After the release of the new intelligence estimate discounting Iran’s nuclear weapons program, May,head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, was one of the first to try to discredit it.

David Steinmann
A New York-based investment banker and chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,Steinmann is a longtime supporter of hardline pro-Israel policies who has served in leading roles forneoconservative organizations.

Foundation for Democracy in Iran
FDI, founded with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy, serves as a vehicle for itshead, Kenneth Timmerman, to promote his anti-Tehran views.

Coalition for Democracy in Iran
The now-defunct coalition, founded in 2002 by the former head of the American Israel Public AffairsCommittee, helped spearhead efforts to turn attention to Iran after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Norman Hascoe
Hascoe, the former head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a powerful Likudnikorganization based in Washington, passed away in late October.

ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB

Annapolis: Aimed at Iran?
By Khody Akhavi

The Annapolis talks may have been aimed at convincing Mideast states that their most dangerous threatcomes from the ascendance of Iran and its brand of Islamic radicalism. Readfull story.

LETTERS

IRC encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightweb@irc-online.org. IRC reserves the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. 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