Follow us on social

|||

Regime changers don't want Biden to re-join the Iran nuclear deal

Signatories of new letter to Biden don't mention their past calls for regime change and war with Iran.

Reporting | Middle East

Several proponents of regime change and war — as well as a Saudi prince and intelligence chief — signed a  letter asking President Joe Biden to be “bipartisan” by continuing the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against Iran.

The letter was organized by United Against Nuclear Iran, a pressure group that received funding from recently-deceased Republican Party megadonor Sheldon Adelson, and Thomas Kaplan, an investor whose companies looked to profit from unrest in the Middle East. The letter calls for “the economic and diplomatic isolation of the Iranian regime,” and was printed as a full page advertisement on Friday in the New York Times.

Biden has vowed to restore diplomacy with Iran along the lines of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which UANI extensively opposed. Under that deal, Iran agreed to abandon its sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for the international community lifting economic sanctions.

The Trump administration left the deal in 2018, pursuing a campaign of “super maximum economic pressure.” In retaliation, Iran has resumed sensitive nuclear activities. The United States and Iran have nearly gone to war twice during the pressure campaign.

UANI’s letter argues against re-entering the Iran deal, claiming that the economic pressure has created “important leverage for the United States” and should not be lifted until Iran ends its regional military operations, releases all American hostages, and agrees to cease all uranium enrichment.

Other experts have argued that using Trump’s Iran sanctions as leverage to expand on the JCPOA won’t work.

The letter also says that the JCPOA was "not popular." But polls now show that most Americans support the nuclear deal.

The letter’s signatories include numerous figures who have opposed diplomacy with Iran, called for military action against the country, or advocated for the overthrow of the Iranian government. Nearly one-third of the signatories to what UANI describes as an “open letter” are directly affiliated with UANI itself.

Two signatories were representatives of the Saudi government.

Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, signed the  letter. So did Norm Coleman, a Republican fundraiser and paid lobbyist for the Saudi Embassy.

Two other signatories had a direct hand in the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign.

John Bolton, former U.S. national security adviser during the maximum pressure campaign, has explicitly written that his goal and the goal of the Trump administration was “regime change.”

Bolton has been advocating for war against Iran for nearly two decades.

Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a vocal regime change advocate, was also a signatory. At the beginning of the Trump administration, his organization submitted a seven-page memo to the White House outlining a plan for fomenting regime change in Iran.

Several signatories of the Friday letter have called for the United States to attack or even overthrow the Iranian government.

UANI chairman Joe Lieberman has called for both Soviet-style regime collapse in Iran and U.S. “military operations” with “the goal of changing the regime.” Lieberman and UANI chief executive Mark Wallace have appeared at conferences organized by the Mojahedin-e Khalq, a self-declared Iranian government-in-exile that the United States once listed as a terrorist organization.

Former senator Kelly Ayotte, a protege of Lieberman, has called for the United States to support an Israeli military strike against the Iranian nuclear program. Retired lieutenant general David Deptula has claimed that a war with Iran would be easy to win.

Ray Tayekh of the Council on Foreign Relations and Michael Makovsky of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America have argued that the Trump administration should explicitly embrace regime change as a goal. Makovsky claimed in a May 2020 speech that the violent collapse of Yugoslavia “actually worked very well” in some respects.

And staffers at the Hudson Institute called forwar with Iran while Kenneth Weinstein, another UANI letter signatory, was the organization's CEO.

Other signatories have attempted to take diplomacy with Iran off the table.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as a member of the House of Representatives, once attempted to pass a law banning any diplomacy whatsoever with Iranian officials. Thomas Kaplan, a major UANI donor and outside employer of UANI CEO Mark Wallace, once claimed that Shi’a Muslims are religiously obligated to lie.

American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Danielle Pletka has been arguing against engagement with Iran for nearly two decades. Before that, she was a vocal supporter of Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi, who played a key role in lobbying for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

UANI’s letter, however, does not frame the signatories’ positions in such hawkish terms.

“President Biden can be a bridge-builder. He has a historic opportunity to restore bipartisanship in US foreign policy and to build a coalition with international allies and partners that could result in meaningful and durable changes in Iran’s international and domestic posture,” it states. “We look forward to working with him, his Administration, and our allies to achieve these ends.”


John Bolton speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) March 6, 2014 (Photo: Christopher Halloran)|||
Reporting | Middle East
Jonathan Greenblatt
Top image credit: Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt speaks during 2023 National Action Network (NAN) Triumph Awards at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York on October 16, 2023 (lev radin / Shutterstock.com)

ADL takes on shareholders questioning Israel arms sales

Middle East

The Anti-Defamation League’s mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all.”

But over the past year that mission has stretched to include defending some of the world’s biggest weapons companies from shareholder proposals calling for reporting on the human rights impact of their weapons, according to a review of SEC filings, proving itself an important ally for weapons and tech firms seeking to profit from sales of weapons technologies to Israel and avoid accountability for the ways in which their products are used on Palestinians.

keep readingShow less
Capital Washington D.C. Pentagon Department of Defense DOD
Top photo: credit Shutterstock. A 5% hike in US military spending would be absolutely nuts
A 5% hike in US military spending would be absolutely nuts

Report: Pentagon will likely fail audits through 2028

Washington Politics

The Defense Department has not taken adequate measures to address “significant fraud exposure,” and its timeline for fixing “pervasive weaknesses in its finances” is not likely to be met, according to a recently released government report.

The Government Accountability Office conducted the report to assist the Pentagon in meeting its timeline for a clean audit by 2028. DOD has failed every audit since it was legally required to submit to one each year beginning in 2018. In fact, the Pentagon is the only one of 24 federal agencies that has not been able to pass an unmodified financial audit since the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.

keep readingShow less
Turkey earthquake
Top photo credit: Hatay Turkey - February, 09,2023 : Aid is distributed to earthquake victims. (Shutterstock)/ BFA-Basin Foto Ajansi)

Americans strongly support basics but are split on other foreign aid

Global Crises

An overwhelming majority of voting-age Americans support providing humanitarian and food aid to developing countries, but they are more divided along partisan lines on other forms of U.S. assistance to nations of the Global South, according to new poll results released by the Pew Research Center.

The findings come as the White House last week released a “skinny budget” that proposed a nearly 48% cut to total foreign aid, including a 40% reduction in humanitarian assistance, for next year and signaled its intent to rescind nearly half the current year’s aid budget appropriated by Congress but not yet spent.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.