Dollars Spent on Supporting and Opposing the Nuclear Agreement

The nuclear agreement with Iran has led both supporters and opponents in the U.S. political arena to engage in a new verbal battle centered around a common theme: a propaganda campaign. This latest episode began when an article in the New York Times criticized the media coverage of the nuclear agreement with Iran, mentioning Ben Rhodes, a senior advisor to Barack Obama, which sparked a sharp backlash from a group of Republican representatives. Naturally, the two main groups involved are the Obama administration, which supports the nuclear agreement, and the Republicans, who hold the majority in Congress and oppose it. Over the past two to three years, while nuclear negotiations were ongoing and after the agreement was reached, this is not the first time the two sides have lined up against each other. However, this time, critics of the agreement accused the administration of influencing the media to ensure that supporters' voices are louder and clearer than those of the opponents. On the other side, supporters have made similar criticisms, claiming that neoconservatives are angry that their multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to 'drag America into another war' did not succeed. In May, the New York Times published a 30-page article in which the author described Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security advisor, as one of his most important advisors. The article states that the U.S. President has portrayed Hassan Rouhani's government as moderate in the media and has attempted to package the nuclear agreement with Iran for public opinion, or quotes Ben Rhodes as saying, 'They (the media) were saying the things we handed to them.' In this context, Rhodes is indeed someone who supports the nuclear agreement and Obama's policies. The article cites various issues from the perspective of current or former senior U.S. politicians that outline part of Obama's thoughts and foreign policy. Outside of the discussion regarding how this article was written, the criticisms and praises it received, what happened was a reconfiguration of the alignment of supporters and opponents. The Associated Press, in an article by Bradley Klapper, referred to the activities of a group that the White House named as a leader in presenting the nuclear agreement to the public: the Ploughshares Fund, which aims to 'create a safer world through investment' in initiatives that ultimately lead to a world free of nuclear weapons. Ploughshares is the group behind the 'packaging' and 'presentation' of the Obama administration's nuclear agreement to the public, and this role has drawn more attention. The group has published details of its activities on its website, and this is not a hidden or secretive matter. Among other things, it has helped send and publish hundreds of letters to editors, hundreds of articles, and notes. This fund has legally provided money to NPR, the National Public Radio of the United States, J Street, a liberal Jewish lobby, the Iranian-American Council, and Princeton University, all in support of the nuclear agreement. The support of groups outside the main political scene for or against a decision that has been made is not unusual. However, some say that Ploughshares' role in financially supporting these campaigns is 'unusual.' Bradley Klapper, the author of the Associated Press report, states that all groups are increasingly financially supporting their thoughts in the media. He also added that considering 'the important role this group has played in the contentious debates of the two parties regarding the Iran agreement,' this support appears 'more unusual.' According to NPR, Ploughshares has been supporting projects at this radio station since 2005, before Obama took office and during George Bush's presidency. A report from the Ploughshares website shows that at least $700,000 has been given to this radio, mainly related to 'Iran' since 2010, during Obama's presidency. NPR states that these contributions have no conditions regarding the reports, except for general matters such as 'nuclear policies' or 'nuclear security' and 'non-proliferation' of nuclear weapons. However, Republicans have accused the government’s supportive advertising campaign of 'misleading public opinion.' These criticisms have not gone unanswered on the other side of this scene either. Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, stated in an article for the Huffington Post that despite similar attacks from conservative media against him, he has recently been specifically targeted for 'hate-mongering.' Cirincione says that neoconservatives are upset that they spent millions of dollars trying to drag America into another unnecessary war but failed. According to him, opponents of the nuclear agreement spent 'tens of millions of dollars' on coordinated campaigns to destroy diplomacy with Iran. They failed; the nuclear agreement with Iran was reached and is yielding results. He states that spending on media coverage of an issue is a normal practice, and the support of this group for 'independent media' like NPR and PRI 'was in no way intended to influence their content and coverage.' His reference is to two major U.S. media (National Public Radio and Public Radio International). Both are 'public' broadcasting entities whose primary defined goal is to provide public media services. In the United States, these entities can receive part of their funding from federal and state sources, although most of the funding comes from organizations and small and large businesses or public donations. In any case, what all media, both supporters and opponents, critics of the 'presentation of the nuclear agreement,' and media that have received financial assistance from 'Ploughshares' emphasize is one thing: financial contributions from opponents and supporters 'have had no impact on their editorial content and coverage.' Iran's nuclear negotiations, despite all the alignments, concluded last year, and the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action' has also reached the implementation stage. And all of this does not mean that this agreement is being implemented without any problems and challenges, nor does it mean that there has not been contact between the U.S. and Iran in recent years before the emergence of Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani. In the first case, efforts by both sides to resolve financial issues, encouraging major banks to invest in Iran, or banks' concerns about remaining U.S. sanctions are among the examples that can be mentioned.