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 evidenceshowsthatit 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 Americanssupportdoing just that.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Frank Gaffney, Founder and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
The Army and Navy ships that have left the U.S. for a massive humanitarian aid project in Gaza are still making their way across the Atlantic, with two still at ports in Florida and Virginia. It will likely take until mid-April for the vessels to reach Gaza and begin building a temporary causeway to facilitate the entry of life-saving aid into the strip.
Looking at real-time satellite imagery tracking military vessels, it looks like the USAV Gen. Frank Besson Jr., an Army support vessel that left Fort Eustis, Virginia, on March 10, has been moored and presumably refueling at a port in the Azores, Portugal, since Friday. It is at the half-way point between the U.S. and its final destination of Cyprus (nearly 5,000 nautical miles total). At an average speed of 10 knots, its journey will take nearly two more weeks, depending on weather conditions, once it gets going again.
The rest of the vessels are behind and, as of Tuesday, halfway across the Atlantic, though they can travel at slightly higher speeds than the Besson. They include the Army support vessels Loux, Matamoros, Monterrey and Wilson Wharf, which are all traveling together and were between Bermuda and the Azores Tuesday morning.
They all left U.S. ports around March 15. They are carrying modules and equipment to build the “trident” causeway — about 800 by 1200 feet — which will be anchored at the beach in Gaza to unload humanitarian aid.
The USNV Roy Benavidez, which, once in place, will help construct the floating pier and serve as a “roll on, roll off” facility two miles off the coast of Gaza, is the fastest of all the military vessels and is now ahead of the smaller Army landing craft on their way to the Azores, even though it left Newport News, Va., on March 21. When complete, aid will be ferried from Cyprus to the floating pier and then to the causeway at Gaza.
Meanwhile, two other Navy vessels that will be assisting with the floating pier, the USNSs Lopez and Bobo, are readying and still docked in Navy ports at Jacksonville and Norfolk respectively. Once on their way these particular vessels will take at least two weeks to reach Cyprus, depending on the weather and refueling at the Azores.
All told these vessels (carrying about 500 U.S. military personnel) won’t be realistically building anything until mid-April, which appears to be in line with a May completion date for the pier and the causeway. Considering that, according to experts, Gazans will be fully in the throes of famine by then, it is still hard to contemplate why the Biden administration has backed the massive JLOTS project instead of ratcheting up pressure on Israel to let in the thousands of trucks of aid that are stopped at borders and checkpoints.
The Pentagon has not returned calls regarding whether the military has hired contractor Fogbow to engage in the logistics on the beach, as the Biden administration insists there will be no boots on the ground. The Times of Israel reported a day ago that Fogbow, which is led by recently retired U.S. Special Forces, Marines and intelligence officers, has already been hired for the job and that the Israel Defense Forces will likely handle security at the aid staging areas. This, too, has yet to be confirmed.
Some are already questioning whether the U.S. military operation will be used to assist a massive refugee camp at the beach once the fighting begins in Rafah. Israel insists the millions of people now sheltering in the city will have to evacuate. The Pentagon has not yet said where the causeway and operations will take place. Stay tuned.
keep readingShow less
Algeria's Representative to the United Nations Amar Bendjama speaks with U.S. Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, during a vote on a Gaza resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, at U.N. headquarters in New York City, U.S., March 25, 2024. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
The United Nations Security Council finally managed to pass a resolution on Monday demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza — the first true indicator that pressure on President Biden to address the war’s calamities is working. The passing of the resolution was followed by spontaneous applause in the Security Council, which is highly unusual. The last time this happened was in 2003 when France’s Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin gave a historic speech against the Iraq war. The applause reflects the immense exasperation with Biden's efforts to keep the war going.
All countries supported the measure with the United States abstaining. Ten countries put forward the measure —Algeria, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Switzerland — that is, all of the non-permanent members, or “elected members,” of the Security Council.
By Friday of last week, when Russia and China vetoed Biden's draft resolution, the E10’s draft had three operative clauses: demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, demanding the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages, and emphasizing the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Over the weekend, intense negotiations took place following a U.S. threat that it would veto any resolution that didn't "support the diplomacy on the ground" — the diplomatic efforts of Qatar, Egypt, and the U.S. The Biden administration sought to link a ceasefire with the release of all hostages, that is, making progress on one issue depended on complete progress on the other.
This linkage could have made one issue hostage to the other. This is the Israeli position; it wants no pressure against its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza until all hostages are released, effectively making the entire population of Gaza hostages. The most immediate consequence of such a linkage is that the war and killing would continue since no issue can be resolved until all issues are resolved.
The other countries rejected the U.S. demand, insisting that both the release of hostages and a ceasefire are imperative and should not be linked, as it otherwise would provide justification for Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza since Hamas hasn't released all hostages. (Which is why Israel and Biden have pushed for this linkage).
The resolution that passed does not accommodate the U.S. demand. Instead, it combines the two demands (ceasefire and hostage release) into one single operative clause, but without linking the two issues.
Here's how the operative clause currently reads:
“Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain.”
The Biden administration tried to change the language of the resolution to support the diplomatic efforts co-led by the U.S. But this is a process that thus far has been unsuccessful, partly because the U.S. has pushed its parameters to meet all Israeli demands. This includes linking a ceasefire with the release of all hostages, including male soldiers.
Again, the other countries have resisted, and the E10 resolution only acknowledges these diplomatic efforts rather than supporting them or deferring the Council's responsibility to this process.
An African diplomat told me that the American draft resolution vetoed on Friday positioned the U.S.-led negotiations above the UNSC. The E10 rejected that proposal because they believe subordinating the U.N. Security Council to diplomatic processes preferred by the U.S. will delegitimize the legal authority of UNSC.
The fact that the U.S. abstained signifies the first instance in which we see Biden's rhetorical shift in favor of a ceasefire translate into political action.
The question is how the passage of this resolution will impact U.S. policy in practice. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly threatened to cancel a delegation to Washington if Biden didn’t veto the resolution. (He subsequently followed through on his threat). It is noteworthy that the Israeli Prime Minister felt comfortable publicly threatening the U.S. while Biden, after Israel has engaged in extensive war crimes using U.S. weapons and undermined U.S. interests, has not even been able to muster the courage to issue a meaningful warning to Israel.
But will the U.S. still continue to sell arms to Israel, even if Israel continues to refuse a ceasefire? Legally, the resolution does not oblige the U.S. to cease arms sales, but politically, there will be added pressure on Washington to help implement the resolution rather than simply acting as a bystander of a ceasefire.
The Biden administration has dismissed all accusations of Israel committing war crimes by declaring that Israel has a right to defend itself. But with the UNSC demanding a ceasefire, will it be more difficult for Biden to continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's indiscriminate killings in Gaza?
keep readingShow less
People lay flowers at a makeshift memorial to the victims of a shooting attack set up outside the Crocus City Hall concert venue in the Moscow Region, Russia, March 24, 2024. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov
The Islamic State terrorist attack in Moscow is the starkest possible reminder that despite the war in Ukraine, Russia and the West also still have some of the same enemies.
What the terrorists — ISIS-K, an Afghanistan offshoot of IS, took responsibility — did in Moscow, they have done in Paris and Manchester — and will do (and did do, on 9/11) in New York and Washington, if they get the chance.
This horror is also a reminder of the fatal results of mutual distrust. It appears that U.S. intelligence warned the Russian government of an impending attack — and President Putin dismissed this as a U.S. “provocation.” In the event that Russian intelligence were to warn the U.S. of a coming terrorist attack, it is only too easy to imagine Washington reacting in the same way.
Moreover, the attack should make us think about the degree to which governments and security elites around the world are liable to lose sight of the real interests and safety of their fellow citizens — which it is their first duty to defend. In their obsessive focus on the supposed threat from each other, both the Russian and the U.S. establishments have forgotten this duty.
Over the past three decades, Washington has certainly threatened important interests in Moscow, and Russia’s international status as a great power. But (at least until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. provision of arms and intelligence to Ukraine), Washington never killed a single Russian citizen.
As to the idea of a direct American and NATO attack on Russia (as alleged in Russian domestic propaganda) this was always absurd. No such plan ever existed. And in any case, if Russia is really so vulnerable, what is its nuclear deterrent for? Meanwhile, over this period, Islamist terrorists have killed hundreds of Russian citizens, at Vladikavkaz in 1999, 2008, and 2010; the Dubrovka theater in Moscow in 2002, the Beslan school in 2004, and now again in Moscow.
Russia for its part has (to a much lesser extent) threatened American international interests and aspects of its global primacy, but Russia has never posed a threat to the U.S. homeland or the lives of ordinary Americans. Russia has never had the ability or (at least until the Ukraine War) the desire to do this; and in any case, what is the U.S. nuclear deterrent good for, if not to deter such a threat?
As to the idea of a Russian invasion of NATO, this is half Cold War paranoid fantasy, half domestic propagandist lie designed to boost Western military budgets. Meanwhile, over the same period, Islamist terrorists killed thousands of ordinary American citizens on 9/11, tried to do so in Boston, and have every intention of doing so again if they can; and killed hundreds of people in U.S. allies in Europe.
This confusion of priorities has also profoundly affected U.S. policy and U.S. media analysis in the Middle East. Russian analysts of my acquaintance simply could not understand how after causing disasters in Iraq and Libya, the U.S. and its allies could have desired to overthrow the Baath state in Syria, and ensure chaos and a very likely victory for IS (as indeed the CIA warned President Obama).
Russians asked how, in early 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can have urged continued support for the brutal dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt — on the grounds that otherwise Islamist extremists might triumph — and then later that year described Russian support for the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al Assad as “despicable,” though it took place for exactly the same reasons. The only explanation they could find was that much of the U.S. establishment was possessed by a pathological hatred for Russia — and they were not wholly wrong about that.
Before and during the second Chechen War beginning in 1999, motivated by blind hostility to Russia, many Western commentators tied themselves in knots trying to avoid acknowledging the growing role of Islamist extremists in Chechnya, and to avoid describing their actions as terrorism. Today, although IS has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack in Moscow, President Putin is seeking to blame it on Ukraine.
Unless he can provide real evidence for it, the Russian elites should reject this charge. Otherwise, once again, they will be failing to defend their fellow citizens against the real threats facing them. Similarly, it is to be hoped that no Western analyst will pay attention to the Ukrainian suggestion — with no evidence at all — that this disaster for Russia was the work of the Russian authorities themselves.
Finally, there is the issue of responsibility. It is absolutely unconscionable that after the U.S. warning, and the example of the dreadful terrorist attack on a Moscow theater in 2002, the Crocus hall was left unguarded. This was criminal negligence on the part of the Russian authorities, and we must hope that senior officials will resign in shame or be severely punished.
But if recent history is any guide, we will hope in vain, as we have hoped in vain that U.S. politicians and officials would take personal responsibility for the disasters into which they have led America over the past generation. This is partly a matter of laws and institutions capable of holding elites to account — things that never existed in Russia and are decaying fast in the West.
Much more importantly, it is a question of inner conscience and a sense of duty. We like to think we are better than Russians in this regard. I wouldn’t be too sure about that.