Follow us on social

38720969890_32c56e3fc3_o-scaled

Anti-Iran deal think tank promotes poll finding Americans support it

The conspiracy-theory prone Center for Security Policy isn't doing its effort to prevent a return to the JCPOA any favors.

Reporting | Middle East

The Center for Security Policy — a controversial hawkish think tank led by conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney — has been at the forefront of the anti-Iran nuclear deal campaign. CSP even received a $60,000 donation from an AIPAC affiliated group as part of that campaign back in 2015 to work against President Obama’s diplomatic efforts and the organization more recently has, for example, said the Biden administration should walk away from the negotiations to re-enter the JCPOA.

That’s why it’s a bit odd that CSP promoted a new poll last week finding that many of Americans support it.

A CSP article touted the poll it conducted in conjunction with TIPP as finding that “Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional review of a new Iran deal,” as the headline blared (a finding that isn’t all that significant seeing that it’s largely expected that Congress will indeed review any potential re-entry agreement).

But buried in the article, CSP noted that the same poll also found that a significant majority of those polled who said they are “closely” following news about the accord support rejoining the deal:

38% of respondents are “closely” following stories related to the Iran deal, while 53% are not. … 62% of those following the story support joining the deal, while 33% oppose it.

The reality at this point is that re-joining the Iran nuclear deal isn’t a matter of whether it will prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon — we already know that the empirical evidence shows that it will.

The main issue now as to whether the Biden administration re-joins the JCPOA appears to be a political one, and all CSP is doing here is reminding people that Americans support doing just that.


Frank Gaffney, Founder and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
Reporting | Middle East
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.