by Eli Clifton
My colleague Ali Gharib and I just published an article in The Nation in which we explore how hawkish, deep-pocketed organizations hold disproportionate influence in shaping the discussion about Iran-policy on Capitol Hill.
These groups, in no small part due to their outsize budgets, shape sanctions legislation, dominate witness lists at congressional hearings, and help lead the opposition to the Obama administration’s efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran.
In the boxing ring that is Washington, the match-up isn’t even. Compare, for example, the budgets of groups that oppose diplomacy with those that support it. Four of Washington’s pro-diplomacy groups are significant players on the Hill: the Center for a New American Security, the National Iranian American Council, the American Iranian Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. According to their most recent tax filings, these organizations boasted an annual combined budget of approximately $9.4 million.
Meanwhile, the latest tax filings for just two of the groups that push hardline policies, the [Foundation for Defense of Democracies] and [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], have a combined budget of approximately $75 million. And that doesn’t include the annual budget of an AIPAC offshoot, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ($8.7 million), or aggressive right-wing PR groups like United Against Nuclear Iran ($1.6 million), whose spokespeople are regularly quoted by national media.
You can read the entire article here, but I’d like to call attention to a sidebar where we profiled three large donors — Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus — to organizations that have put up resistance to the P5+1’s efforts to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran. Check it out.
*This article was first published by The Nation on July 18 and was reprinted here with permission. Copyright 2014, The Nation.