Permalink | Date posted: September 08, 2011
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the right-wing Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and Mark Dubowitz, FDD’s executive director, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post last week calling for the Obama administration to take harsher actions toward the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, including energy sanctions and “covert action” in support of the Syrian opposition.
Compared to other neoconservative exhortations on Obama’s Syria policy—like John Bolton’s recent diatribe in the New York Post—the tone of the op-ed is comparatively warm and inviting, with the authors concluding that Obama, as “the son of an African Muslim and an American woman who dedicated her life to the Third World,” is “tailor-made to lead the United States in expanding democracy to the most unstable, autocratic and religiously militant region of the globe.”
The authors claim there is a popular opening for western intervention in Syria, declaring that now “demonstrators are calling for foreign intervention,” an apparent reference to a pro-intervention sign captured on film in the hard-hit city of Homs. However, the claim overlooks a great deal of division within the opposition about the desirability of abandoning non-violent tactics or of inviting foreigners into the uprising.
Indeed, the authors deftly sweep aside any concern for the demonstrators in favor of a lengthier exposition on Syria’s “strategic sins against the United States,” among which the authors include the regime’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its alliance with Iran and, rather more questionably, its “possible” connection to the 9/11 attacks. “Almost every Arab terrorist group,” they conclude, “spawned in the hothouses of Islamic militancy and Arab nationalism, has had a presence in Damascus.”
Advocates of military-led regime change in the Middle East have long understood the need to stage diplomatic or “non-kinetic” escalations before pushing for military action. With respect to Iran, Gerecht himself wrote toward the end of the Bush administration that diplomacy “is something that must be checked off before the next president [can] unleash the Air Force and the Navy.” This may hold some predictive value for where he ultimately comes down on regime change in Syria, which he has deemed “an easy call.”
John Bolton, the notorious hardliner who served as President Bush’s UN ambassador, is chairman of the “Islamophobic” Gatestone Institute and a senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute.
A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.
Right Web In late December, with Congress away on recess, Robert Ford was appointed the new U.S. ambassador to Syria,…
Inter Press Service Though many expected the Muslim holy month of Ramadan to bring a significant boost to the beleaguered…
Inter Press Services Though the Arab Spring has heralded newfound hope and optimism across the Middle East, the mood has…
Robert Dreyfuss, Applying the Libya Model to Syria and Iran, The Nation, August 29, 2011.
“You can already imagine the drumbeat from neocons and liberal interventionists,” writes Dreyfuss, “that the United States cannot allow Syrians, or Iranians, to be massacred.”
Liz Sly, Calls in Syria for weapons, NATO intervention, Washington Post, August 28, 2011
Syrian activists are frustrated by Bashar al-Assad’s continued use of violence and hold on power, leading to divisions about the wisdom of armed resistance or foreign intervention.
Josh Rogin, Conservatives suggest Syria next steps, Foreign Policy, August 19, 2011
A letter to President Obama signed by 32 mostly conservative signatories shows FDD’s leadership on the push for new sanctions in Syria, among other more aggressive tactics.
Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
David Albright’s criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal have placed him amongst a diminishingly small group of arms control “experts” who oppose or seek to change the agreement. Underscoring Albright’s isolation, Mark Wallace of the controversial activist group United Against a Nuclear Iran was hard-pressed during a recent interview to identify many anti-deal figures in the arms control community, stating: “David Albright, even though he’s not affiliated with us, has been very useful.”
Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, has a track record of levelling accusations of anti-Semitism against those he disagrees with. He has gone so far as to allege that President Obama has resorted to anti-Semitism in defending the Iran nuclear deal, ludicrously claiming in a recent piece: “Obama is using a dog-whistle. He’s hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits—like dual loyalties, moneyed interests, Jewish lobby.”
Henry Sokolski, a former aide to Paul Wolfowitz, is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a member of the board of advisors of the controversial activist group United Against Nuclear Iran. Sokolski’s track record includes pressing conflict in Iran and promoting aggressive counter-proliferation policies. Along with the controversial analyst David Albright, a frequent collaborator with neoconservative groups, Sokolski is one of a very small handful of arms control “experts” who have heaped criticism on the Iran nuclear deal.
Neoconservative ideologue Elliott Abrams wildly accuses President Obama of resorting to anti-Semitism in his criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal’s opponents. "The president ... must know that he is here feeding a deep line of anti-Semitism that accuses American Jews of getting America into wars," Abrams proclaimed in a recent op-ed.
Eric Edelman, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and longtime opponent of the Iran nuclear negotiations, has joined the chorus of voices calling for Congress to revoke the Iran deal. At a recent Senate hearing, he argued that while the United States should “embark on a new round of diplomacy” with Iran, Congress should consider “coupling its disapproval of the deal with authorization for the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”