Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-07-27-at-5.06.17-pm

Bloomberg doesn't disclose potential conflict in op-ed promoting Israel arms deal

The author happens to advise Biden-linked consulting firm WestExec, whose client makes the weapons in question.

Reporting | Media

Last Friday, Bloomberg published an op-ed by former U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross, making the evergreen Iran hawk argument that now is the time to provide Israel with the GBU-57 “mountain buster” bomb and the aircraft to carry the ordinance, the B-2 bomber. The move, according to Ross, would  “send a powerful message” that while “[t]he Iranians may doubt whether the U.S. would follow through on its threats; they won’t have any trouble believing the Israelis will.”

Ross and Bloomberg neglected to disclose that the former diplomat may have a financial conflict of interest in advocating for the export of these specific weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear sites: Ross is a senior adviser at WestExec Advisers, a firm whose client list includes Boeing, the manufacturer of the GBU-57 bomb and the B-2 bomber.

Ross justifies his advocacy for handing over powerful weapons to a foreign country as “the best inducement for Iran to negotiate a ‘longer and stronger’ deal” instead of focusing on getting Iran and the United States back into compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program, that the Trump administration unilaterally abrogated from.

Handing Israel the tools to start a war with Iran, a war that would likely drag the United States into another war in the Middle East as the Biden administration works to end two-decades of U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, is high stakes, something Ross acknowledges. “Of course, the White House would need to reach a firm understanding with the Israelis about triggers for the bomb’s use,” said Ross, while offering no details on how the United States might enforce such an “understanding” after handing over control of a potentially regionally destabilizing bomb and the never-before-exported B-2 bomber.

Bloomberg didn’t disclose that Ross may have another incentive to press for these seemingly extreme measures: money. Ross works as a senior adviser at WestExec, a firm that maintains exceptionally close ties to the Biden White House. Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, was one of WestExec’s founders and the firm is largely staffed by national security officials from the Obama administration.

During the Trump years, WestExec signed up a client list of prominent companies, including Boeing.

The size of that contract and the work undertaken is opaque. Executive Branch financial disclosures filed by Biden appointees who worked at WestExec offer little information. Blinken’s disclosure, for example, simply reveals that the now-secretary of state worked on the Boeing account for WestExec, providing “advisory service” to the weapons firm, and received more than $5,000 for the work.

Ross hasn’t been appointed to any position in the Biden administration and isn’t required to file a financial disclosure, so the details of his work at WestExec are unknown.

A 2018 press release, announcing Ross’s hiring by WestExec, marketed him as “support[ing] WestExec’s growing list of clients, providing insight and advice to those with business interests across the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and Asia.”

WestExec did not respond to questions about whether Ross worked directly on the Boeing account but Ross told Responsible Statecraft, “I do policy assessment and risk analyst [sic] from time to time as a consultant to WestExec Advisers, typically to respond to questions from its clients.”

Ross said he was unaware that Boeing produced the B-2 and the GBU-57.

“Prior to receiving your note I did not even know who produced either the bomb or the plane — I was focused on how to change the Iranian calculus, how to enhance deterrence, and what it could take to do so,” said Ross. “Readers should consider the weight of the argument not an issue that I was not even aware of.”

Bloomberg Opinion did not respond to questions about whether Ross’s work at a firm that conducted work for Boeing posed a conflict of interest for Ross advocating for the export of sensitive Boeing manufactured weapons to Israel.


Images: Piotr Swat and VDB Photos via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Media
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.