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
ukraine war
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks

Diplomacy Watch: Russia capitalizing on battlefield surge

QiOSK

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.

The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.

keep readingShow less
Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets after Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel, October 1, 2024 REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX

Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Middle East

Today, Iran launched a massive missile attack against Israel, which Tehran billed as a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of the IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel now appears to be mulling a retaliation in turn that could push the sides into all-out war.

When Israel and Iran narrowly avoided a full-blown conflict in April, I warned that we shouldn’t let Biden’s help in averting escalation overshadow his broader, strategic failure to prevent such a dangerous moment from ever arising. Had the U.S. used its considerable leverage with Israel to end its war in Gaza, the region would not have found itself on the edge of a disastrous war in April; six months later, the Middle East is back at the brink of disaster.

keep readingShow less
Disabled refueler exposes fragility of US mission in Middle East

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) approaches the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) for a replenishment-at-sea. September 12, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tristan Kyle Labuguen/Released)

Disabled refueler exposes fragility of US mission in Middle East

Middle East

A U.S. Navy oil tanker running aground off the coast of Oman isn’t a huge event. The fact that it is the only tanker to refuel American warships in a Middle East conflict zone, is.

In fact, this only underscores the fragility of the Navy’s logistic systems at a time when the U.S. has chosen to lean in on an aggressive military posture when it may not have the full capacity to do so, and it may or may not be in the national interest for the Navy to be conducting these operations in the first place.

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

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.