[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
World News See other World News Articles Title: The Disappearing Prince of Darkness (Richard Perle) The Disappearing Prince of Darkness October 19, 2015 by Jim Lobe Where is Richard Perle? His virtually total absence from the Iran nuclear debate over the past two years was perhaps one of the most remarkable features of the whole controversy. Ubiquitous in the major media in the run-up to and aftermath of the Iraq war debacle and a long-time advocate of regime change by whatever means in Iran, the prince of darkness, Washingtons leading neoconservative operative for several decades, seems almost to have entirely disappeared from public view. A pretty exhaustive search on Google and in Nexis-Lexis found only a couple of instances where he was interviewed about the Iran deal at any length. Both appeared on the right-wing NewsMax website. On March 3 this year, he commented on Bibi Netanyahus controversial speech to a joint session of Congress: it was an excellent speech and should put behind us the controversy over whether he shouldve been invited. And on March 23, he predicted that the deal between Tehran and the P5+1 was headed for a crash landing due to congressional opposition. On April 28, he was also interviewed in a video produced by the Wilson Center, but the main subject was the effectiveness of sanctions against other countries. The Iran sanctions shouldve been part of a strategy for regime change, he opined. On June 8, 2015, he was interviewed on Secure Freedom Radio, an outlet of the far-right Center for Security Policy (CSP), led by his old comrade-in-neocon-arms and former subordinate in Scoop Jacksons office and at the Pentagon, Islamophobe Frank Gaffney. But the subject of that show was Turkey and the Kurds, not Iran. You would think that the man the Corporation for Public Broadcasting chose to present the hour-long The Case for War in its controversial 2007 Crossroads series would get a bit more media attention as Washington debated perhaps the most significant Middle East-related diplomatic accord since the Oslo agreement a couple decades ago. Warmonger When I first noticed his glaring absence from the public debate on the Iran deal, I thought it was perhaps a clever tactical move on his part. After all, Perle was a very early promoter of Ahmad Chalabi and, more than any single individual outside the Bush administration, led the public charge for the Iraq invasion. He repeatedly insisted on the major television and cable networks, even before the proverbial dust had settled on Lower Manhattan, that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Later he floated tall tales about meetings in Prague between Saddams agents and Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi leaders crash nuclear weapons program. For him to take a leading role in rallying opposition to the Iran deal would inevitably evoke memories of his earlier warmongering and thus might prove counter-productive. Of course, it was also possible that major media had learned that they had a public responsibility not to give a platform to people with well-established records either of mendacity or gullibilityPerle still thinks Chalabi, the architect of de-Baathification, is Iraqs savior-in-waitingdepending on which you category you believe best applies to Perle. But, judging from all the attention they gave to Bibis views on the Iran dealnot to mention the recent ravings, at AEI no less, of Dick CheneyI dont find that explanation particularly persuasive. In the two NewsMax interviews, Perle was identified as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. At the Wilson Center and on Secure Freedom interviews, he was referred to as a resident fellow at AEI. Remarkably, however, Perles name no longer appears on the think tanks list of scholars and fellows. (Look at the latest Foreign and Defense Policy list.) On Wednesday, I phoned AEIs press contact to ask exactly what was Perles position. She hesitated and asked me to send an email that she could refer to the right person. But no reply was forthcoming. When I talked with AEIs receptionist last week, she told me that, although Perle retained an affiliation with the Institute, he was off-site. And when I inserted his name into the sites Search tab, the latest item that comes up dates back to April 20, 2014. This was an article he co-authored with his son, Jonathan, for The American Interest entitled Leadership as a Last Resorta predictable neocon critique of the Obama administrationin which he was described as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Assistant Secretary of Defense. So why doesnt he show up on AEIs experts list? And why cant its press people tell me what his status is? Of course, he may simply have retired. But given his long service to and association with AEI, doesnt he somehow deserve to be given emeritus status? He no doubt raised lots of money for the institution. When Perle and the neocons were riding high in George W. Bushs first term (when Cheney ruled the roost), Bruce Kovner, a very private but very important neocon philanthropist, served as deputy chairman and then chairman of AEIs board of trustees and was likely its top individual donor. From 2002 through 2005, he gave AEI some $11.5 million, according to tax filings. Kovner, who is known to have been close to Perle (as well as Cheney), is still on AEIs board of trustees. Pletkas Ploy? I have heard from some well-connected neoconservatives, however, that Danielle Pletka, a former Perle protégée who has served as AEIs vice president for foreign and defense policy for a number of years now, has long looked forward to (and may have lobbied for) Perles departure. Her unhappiness with him apparently dates at least from 2008 when the Wall Street Journal reported that he was actively exploring investing in oil-related projects in Kurdistan. He was also looking into additional investments in Kazakhstan whose notoriously authoritarian and corrupt president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, he had praised as visionary and wise, according to the Kazakhstan embassy here. As the Journal noted at the time, Perle resigned as chairman of Don Rumsfelds Defense Policy Board (DPB) in March 2003 after the exposure of his role as an adviser to a telecom company (Global Crossing) that was seeking the Bush administrations approval of its sale to a Hong Kong-based corporation. Global Crossing had retained his services for $125,000 with the promise that he would receive an additional $600,000 if the sale were consummated, according to The New York Times. Perle subsequently severed his ties to Global Crossing and pledged to donate any fee for his past service to the families of American forces killed or injured in Iraq, But he retained his membership on the DPBwhich, thanks to Perle and his good friend then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, was dominated by fellow neoconsat Rumsfelds behest. (Perle and Rumsfeld forged close ties dating back to their mutual effort to derail détente in the mid-1970s.) Pletkas unhappiness reportedly increased in 2011 at the outset of the insurrection against Muammar Qadhafi. Documents made public by the Libyan opposition established that Perle had travelled to Libya twice in 2006 to meet with Qadhafi as a paid adviser to The Monitor Group, a Massachusetts-based consultancy firm that had been retained by Tripoli for a Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi, as one Monitor memo described its role. Perle, who never registered as a foreign agent, later reported his findings to Cheney, according to the documents. If its true that Pletka has maneuvered Perle out of AEI, it marks something of a watershed. Probably Washingtons most influential neocon operative of his generation, he played a critical role in driving the U.S. to war in Iraq, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith (another Perle protégé). But he seems to have retired to the fever swamps of Gaffneys CSP. His departure, if that indeed is what it is, follows those of his long-time collaborators at the Institute. Theres Joshua Muravchik, one of the few neocon apparatchniks who has voiced some regret about Iraq but who has nonetheless promoted war with Iran since at least 2006. And theres also Michael Ledeen, who, judging by his writings, has long occupied a fever swamp of his very own as a columnist at Pajamas Media. Ledeen went from being the Freedom Scholar at AEI to the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) several years ago. Another former AEI scholar, Reuel Marc Gerecht, moved over to FDD at the same time. Its not clear whether the departure of any or all three were related to Pletkas dissatisfaction with their work (although Muravchik had loudly complained to colleagues before he left that he was under pressure to produce more op-eds in more prominent publications). Or perhaps the promise of FDDs ever-expanding budgetprovided by billionaire members of the Republican Jewish Coalition such as Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer lured them away. None of this means, however, that AEIs foreign policy team has lost its belligerent and militaristic stripes. Its most visible scholar, after all, remains John Bolton, while Paul Wolfowitz has occupied a perch there since his unceremonious departure from the World Bank. Pletka, who, like Bolton, once worked for Jesse Helms, has herself become something of a television regular as the acerbic critic of the weakness and appeasement of the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the albeit much more obscure Perle protégé, Michael Rubin, continues to uphold hardline neocon orthodoxy in his contributions to National Review and Commentarys Contentions blog. Poster Comment: A good history of the Neocons and how they have operated going back to détente in the mid-1970s. Now it seems that they have targeted Iran for "regime change". Can we expect a new Shah of Iran to emerge from the wood pile? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|