Follow us on social

Witnesses backed by military, foreign $$ hype war with Iran

Witnesses backed by military, foreign $$ hype war with Iran

It's a lucrative business if you can get it

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

At a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing on Thursday, witnesses proposed confronting Iran directly by deploying more military capabilities to the Middle East and the authorization of the use of force.

Yet, they conveniently neglected to mention that their employers — which included one Pentagon contractor and several think tanks funded by weapons manufacturers — stand to rake in profits from selling Congress on a military-first approach to Iran.

One of the witnesses of the hearing — billed as “Israel and the Middle East at a Crossroads: How Tehran’s Terror Campaigns Threatens the U.S. and our Allies” — was Kirsten Fontenrose. Fontenrose, a former Trump administration official, testified that the U.S. should pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), an open-ended congressional resolution that would authorize the president to engage in military action against Iran.

“The U.S. should make it clear to the leadership of Iran’s proxy, drone and missile programs that new capabilities now permit the U.S. and partners to dismantle their facilities and chains of command with low to no risk of negative secondary effects," she said. "Though ‘AUMF’ is a four letter word in Congress, an Authorized Use of Military Force could convey this quickly and clearly.”

Fontenrose is the President of Red Six Solutions, a red team defense consulting company and Pentagon contractor that prepares clients for threats against unmanned aerial systems. Its website boasts that its “pilot services include UAS operations, training, airspace coordination, event planning, and data generation with all types of UAS to include swarm, large-scale and turbine aircraft.”

According to one of Red Six’s partners, the company has explicitly prepared clients to combat threats from Iran.

Fontenrose is also a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council. In a financial conflict of interest document submitted to the subcommittee, Fontenrose disclosed a grant from Norway to the Atlantic Council. Yet, she did not mention the think tank’s funding from Gulf countries, despite being required to list all foreign government contributions related to the hearing’s content. Through embassies and state-owned companies, the UAE and Saudi Arabia (both have had an adversarial relations with Iran) contributed over $3 million and $300,000 respectively to the Atlantic Council over the past two years based on a review of annual reports.

Elliott Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair, is back on Capitol Hill testifying on — of all things — Iran. During the hearing, Abrams testified that “we have too often been guided by fear of Iran, and have restrained the ability of both our own CENTCOM forces and of our ally Israel in responding to Iranian attacks. It's past time to put those fears behind us.”

Abrams argued we should take “military moves that suggest to Iran we’re serious, for example having the force structure there.” Abrams is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, which accepted at least $750,000 from major Pentagon contractors in the past two years.

Jonathan Lord, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, praised the Biden administration’s decision to send aircraft carriers to the region to deter Iran: “The presence of two carrier strike groups, and not only that but the messaging about all the stealth capabilities, F-35s, F-22s, a guided missile destroyer, these are first strike capabilities and obviously it’s not going to get talked about publicly, but I’m fairly convinced that Iran was put on notice and President Biden had his hand on the holster and made it very clear: deterrence can be effective.”

The Center for a New American Security, received over $2.5 million in contributions from major Pentagon contractors in the last two years. This included at least $1,000,000 from Northrop Grumman, $350,000 from Lockheed Martin, and $100,000 from BAE Systems, the manufacturers of the F-35.

CNAS spokesperson David McKenzie told RS that CNAS "accepts funds from a broad range of sources provided they are for purposes that are in keeping with its mission" and provided a link to its funders and intellectual independence policy.

Red Six Solutions and Council on Foreign Relations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At the end of the hearing, Lord noted plenty of consensus on the panel towards a more confrontational approach with Iran. “If you look across the recommendations in our testimonies, there is a lot of shared thinking here.”

Of course there is. In the past two sessions of Congress alone, think tanks funded by Pentagon contractors sent at least 60 people to testify to the House of Representatives. As long as witnesses funded by private defense companies continue to dominate the witness table, there will always be a consensus projected in favor of using military force.

House Armed Services Committee in 2015. (DoD photo by Army Staff Sgt. Sean K. Harp/Released)

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
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.