Highlights & Quotes
Morris Amitay, a longtime legislative assistant in Congress and lobbyist for the influential American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is an adviser to Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and the former vice chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a U.S.-based pro-Likud advocacy outfit that specializes in connecting U.S. military brass to their counterparts in the Israeli armed forces. JINSA associates include Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle.
Amitay is also a member of the large wing of neoconservative commentators who advocate broader U.S. intervention in the Middle East, particularly in Iran. In 2003, Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran. According to the Coalition's web site, "The Islamic Republic as a whole must be held accountable for its actions. Engaging reformists tied only to the regime is counterproductive since it stifles the growth of more democratic forces inside Iran. Perpetuating the behavior of the current regime fundamentally undermines U.S. moral values and national security interests." (5)
During a May 2003 conference at the American Enterprise Institute on the future of Iran, Amitay sharply criticized the U.S. State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic, saying that Newt Gingrich's much publicized lambasting of State and Colin Powell had not gone far enough. Clearly eager to see the United States take direct action against Iran, Amitay, who was introduced by Michael Ledeen as the "godfather" of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, grudgingly acknowledged that such action would be difficult before the 2004 presidential elections: "As far as the administration is concerned, I think we have to concede that from now until November of 2004, the presidential reelection will be a very, very high priority, and that having taken on Iraq, I don't think that this administration or any administration would want to undertake the use of force for regime change anywhere else in the world. So I think what we will see is what we saw for most of Clinton's eight years, a policy of kicking the can down the road, a hoping for the best, making tactical decisions, no really decisive, bold decisions."
Regarding the State Department, Amitay said:
"The role of the State Department, then, with the White House I think paying less attention to Iran than it deserves, will be crucial. And let me say some of my best friends are in the State Department. I have two good friends here, Bob Pelletrow
, Bill Miller. And some of my comments do not necessarily apply to them, but I'm speaking more largely about the culture of the State Department.
"Now, I was preempted by Newt Gingrich, from this very from this very position, but I think that Newt was not tough enough in his criticism of State, and I think I can do so because of some of my own experiences.
"I think at this point it's not enough to say that the Secretary of State is just a captive of the State Department. After a couple of years, the bonds have been loosened, and I think that he's basically acting a great deal on his own, and I think there's a certain mind-set in dealing with adversaries of our country that having an instinct for the capillaries is not enough. We did not finish the job in '91. Thankfully, we did so now, and I don't think the State Department distinguished itself in the run up to the war in Iraq with regard to relations with Turkey, handling the United Nations, relationship with France, et cetera. . . .
"Well, Colin Powell, on Sunday, on Meet the Press, was asked to react to what the mullahs in Iran were doing in Iraq, and what he did was he called their policies 'inappropriate,' not unacceptable, not tyrannical, not terrorist, but just inappropriate--a bit of an understatement. . . .
"In a state mind-set, no tyrannical regime can't be made a friend by showing our own good will, politeness, process and accommodation, as Gingrich put it. . . .
"Now, you have the Congress. The Congress is more action oriented. The culture of Capitol Hill is to pass bills and resolutions, appropriate funds, and they have to face the voters. They are accountable. But Congress, because of this, they're held in contempt by people in the State Department. The worst assignment a Foreign Service Officer can get is to accompany a congressional delegation when they come visiting.
"The Congress is held in contempt by the State Department. They are no nothings. They're a bunch of yahoos, and anything they do is developed as simplisma. They don't have the sophistication. Some members of Congress are flattered by the State Department as being one of us, and as we go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Brownback's initiatives, we're going to have some problems with some of the leading members." (6)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/amitay/amitay.php
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
