1 Boring Old Man

Bolton suggests nuclear attack on Iran
Lobelog.com
By Daniel Luban
October 14, 2009

This Friday, the American Enterprise Institute will host an event addressing the question “Should Israel attack Iran?” The event includes, among others, Iran uberhawk Michael Rubin and infamous “torture lawyer” John Yoo, but the real star is likely to be John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador whose right-of-Attila views left him an outcast even within the second Bush administration. [Bolton was eventually forced out when it became clear that he would be unable to win Senate confirmation for the U.N. post.]

If Bolton’s recent rhetoric is any indication, his AEI appearance may accomplish the formidable feat of making Michael Rubin sound like a dove. Discussing Iran during a Tuesday speech at the University of Chicago, Bolton appeared to call for nothing less than an Israeli nuclear first strike against the Islamic Republic. [The speech, sponsored by the University Young Republicans and Chicago Friends of Israel, was titled, apparently without a trace of irony, “Ensuring Peace.”]

“Negotiations have failed, and so too have sanctions,” Bolton said, echoing his previously-stated belief that sanctions will prove ineffectual in changing Tehran’s behavior. “So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future”…

American Enterprise Institute
EVENTS: Should Israel Attack Iran?
Law, Policy, and Foundations for the Debate

Date: Friday, October 23, 2009
Time:1:00 PM — 4:00 PM

About This Event:
^{Iran’s nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel’s top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, repeating that “Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table.” As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States.}

^{The speakers in Panel I will consider the international legal aspects of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. What treaties are relevant? How might Iran retaliate against Israel, the United States, or other countries? Would an Israeli attack violate international law? Or would it be legitimate self-defense? …}

^{The speakers in Panel II will consider strategy and policy. What role will the United States play in supporting its ally Israel? Can military action taken by Israel effectively deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? …}

Agenda

12:45 p.m.	Registration
1:00 p.m.	Panel I: International Law
	Panelists:	Eric Posner, University of Chicago
		John Yoo, AEI
		Edwin D. Williamson, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
	Moderator:	John Yoo, AEI
2:30 p.m.	Panel II: Strategy and Policy
	Panelists:	John R. Bolton, AEI
		Martin Indyk, Brookings Institution
		Michael Rubin, AEI
	Moderator:	Danielle Pletka, AEI
4:00 p.m.	Adjournment

Some things never change.There was a thirties song, Johnny One Note. Well, there are two Johnny One Notes coming to a right-wing think tank near you, soon. I wonder what they’ll conclude with a title like Should Israel Attack Iran? Why would they have such a panel? It would be a lot cheaper to put a sign that says "Yes" on the door, and forget the EVENT altogether instead of saying: "As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States." The idea that John Yoo might question the legality of such a bombing is ludicrous. The implication that John Bolton would seriously debate the question is equally spurious. It’s the only thing Bolton knows how to say, since long before Bush made it to the White House [My ongoing theory is that the gawky Mr. Bolton asked an Iranian girl for a date in high school and she said ‘no’]. Attacking Iran is always timely for John Bolton. The same is true for Michael Rubin. He’s just less well known.

This is what happened when George H.W. Bush was beaten by Bill Clinton. These people sat around at the American Enterprise Institute having timely events like this, living in the rarified atmosphere of AEI waiting to have a shot at neoconning the country. Actually, it wasn’t always that way. Back in the 1980’s longtime AEI Fellow Michael Ledeen brokered an Arms Swap with Iran [through Israel] called the Iran-Contra Affair. And before that, somebody brokered the release of the Iranian hostages on the very day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated – unless, of course, that was a colossal coincidence [I’d bet on Michael Ledeen].

Funding

In 2006 AEI reported that its income was $28.4 million. Of this it states on its website that "individual contributions of more than $10 million provided the largest share of the revenue base, followed by $6 million in corporate support, and $4.7 million from foundations."

Corporate donations

While the AEI acknowledges that it received over $6 million in corporate contributions in 2006, the donors are not identified in either its annual report or on its website. However, it is known that during 1997, Philip Morris contributed $100,000 to the Institute During 2007, ExxonMobil contributed $240,000 [including an addition $30,000 for the joint AEI Brookings "Judicial Education Program".][It is worth noting that AEI notes in its 2006 annual report that Lee R. Raymond, the now retired Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation is a member of AEI.

On its website it states that "national and multinational corporations who support AEI maintain close relationships with the Institute’s scholars and regularly receive top-level research and analysis on specific policy interests and priorities. In addition, corporations provide important input to AEI on a wide variety of issues. Corporate involvement with AEI includes special invitations to public and private events; AEI’s full slate of research studies, articles, books and other publications; access to our scholars, fellows, and senior management; and more." It also states that "the Institute does not perform contract research and, with rare exceptions, does not accept government grants."

It also claims that "a diversity of interests can render any individual conflict of interest small or de minimis. AEI has many hundreds of corporate, foundation, and individual donors, none of them accounting for more than a small fraction of the Institute’s budget." It also states that "AEI scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct interest in the subject of that work. AEI discloses the source of project-specific donations to research on subjects in which the donors have a material interest."

Foundation Funding

Media Transparency estimates that between 1985 and 2006, AEI received $44,636,101 [unadjusted for inflation] from the following funding sources:

• Carthage Foundation
• Castle Rock Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
• Scaife Foundations [Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage]
• Smith Richardson Foundation

Amounts contributed by the Coors Foundation are not included. Funding has come from many other sources, such as Amoco, the Kraft Foundation, and the Procter & Gamble Fund. AEI, unlike some think tanks, has no endowment – something which has led the organization into financial embarrassment in 1985 when its operating budget outstripped its donations by 25 percent [Newsweek, 1984].