Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1299568381-scaled

Authors of think tank report praising Gulf arms sales have ties to defense industry

The Jewish Institute for National Security of America didn't disclose the potential for a serious conflict of interest.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Last week, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the ultra-hawkish think tank that promotes U.S.-Israel military relations, released its report on the 2020 Abraham Accords. 

The launch event featured laudatory remarks by the ambassadors to the United States of the three initial signatories – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Israel – all of which have shared an interest in shifting the regional balance of power against Iran.  

But another interest group was omnipresent in the report’s creation, albeit never publicly disclosed by JINSA.

Seven of the report’s eight authors enjoy close and presumably lucrative ties with the U.S. arms companies. Unsurprisingly, weapons sales were praised throughout the report and heralded as the linchpin of the Accords’ success.

“Crucial to the [Trump] administration’s success was its readiness to provide the Accords’ Arab participants with significant – and in some cases controversial – inducements in terms of their bilateral relations with the United States,” according to the report. “This included arms sales to the UAE…”

The report went on to criticize the Biden administration for limiting some arms sales and working to end the Saudi led war in Yemen that has pushed five million Yemenis to the brink of famine, left four million displaced, and made two-thirds of the population dependent on humanitarian assistance.

“Whether intended or not, early moves by the administration such as rescinding the terrorism designation against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, suspending the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, and denouncing former President Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy against Iran were all interpreted as signs that America’s commitments to defending its friends and deterring its adversaries in the Middle East were changing in ways that would be less conducive to advancing Arab-Israeli peace,” wrote the authors.

Neither the authors nor JINSA disclosed what may be a serious conflict of interest underlying the report’s policy prescriptions: all but one of the report’s authors are in the weapons business.

Case in point: JINSA lists the eight “policy project” members by their former military ranks or government roles. They include General Kevin Chilton, USAF (ret.), Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, USN (ret.), Ambassador Eric Edelman, Vice Admiral Mark Fox, USN (ret.), The Honorable Mary Beth Long, General Joseph Votel, USA (ret.), General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.), and Admiral Paul Zukunft, USCG (ret.).

Chilton sits on the board of Aerojet Rocketdyne, the only major U.S. independent supplier of solid-fuel rocket engines, and is president of Chilton & Associates LLC, “an aerospace, cyber and nuclear consulting company,” according to his Aerojet bio.

Aerojet provides the rocket booster for the THAAD missile defense system, a weapon exported to both the UAE and Israel and with deals in place for sales to Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Donegan is a “Senior Adviser for National Security and Cyber Security” at Fairfax National Security Solutions, a company “Providing national security and cyber security advisory service to allied governments,” according to Donegan’s LinkedIn profile.

Fairfax National Security Solutions is a member of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council 

From 2016 until 2021, Fox served as Vice President of Customer Affairs at Huntington Ingalls, the largest naval shipbuilding firm in the United States.

Long is a principal and co-founder of Global Alliance Advisors, a firm that boasts about its “defense planning” work for foreign governments and “acquisition of defense weaponry.”  

Votel is a strategic advisor for Sierra Nevada Corporation, a privately owned aerospace and weapons firm. The Corporation was a member of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council from 2019 until 2021

According to his LinkedIn profile, Wald is president of Wald International Strategy, where he helps “provide high level advice and strategy regarding International Security and Defense business development,” and Director and Vice Chairman of Federal Practice Advisory Partner at Deloitte Services, where he is “[r]esponsible for providing senior leadership in strategy and relationships with defense contractors and Department of Defense (DOD) program executives.”

Zukunft serves on the senior advisory board of Liquid Robotics, according to his LinkedIn profile. Liquid Robotics is an underwater drone manufacturer owned by Boeing, one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the world.

Boeing is also a member of the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council and a major exporter of weapons to Israel and the UAE

JINSA did not respond to questions about whether it was aware of the potential conflicts of interest between the report’s promotion of weapons sales as a central pillar of the Abraham Accords and the extensive financial ties between the report’s authors and weapons firms or whether JINSA has any conflict of interest policy to address such situations.

Not everyone agrees that arms sales constitute a promising strategy for regional peace.

"If the normalization agreement model is to be a sustainable one, it must be able to stand on its own merits, not hinge on dumping even more deadly weaponry into the Middle East,” said Dylan Williams, senior vice president for policy and strategy at J Street, a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group. “There is a viable regional approach to achieving full normalization between Israel and its neighbors, but it rests on addressing Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, not on massive arms deals."

Given the wholesale embrace of the report at its launch, it appears that the biggest beneficiaries of the Abraham Accords are in lockstep with the weapons firms whose products, and profits, are central to the agreement, even if it perpetuates the war in Yemen and makes a reduction in tensions with Iran less likely. Those outcomes might not serve U.S. national security interests but, as the report’s endorsers and authors show, foreign and U.S. special interests in the weapons industry are enthusiastic about a flood of weapons to the Gulf.


Image: Baiploo / shutterstock.com
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.