Neocon Hand-Holder Gets Iran Brief

By Cernig

That possibility of a meaningful detente with Iran, promised by President Obama in many a campaign speech? Fuggetaboutit.

Despite the speed with which the IAEA pushed back against the atrociously hyped meme that "Iran has enough material for a bomb (if it was the right kind of material)", the appointment of Dennis "Walks With Newocons" Ross to the Iran brief practically guarantees that the Obama administration will continue to talk in terms that preclude any deal with Iran, ignoring both the US intelligence community's 2007 assessment and IAEA evidence that Iran has no current weapons program.

All the elements for a bit of political theatre are now in place, with the result a foregone conclusion. Ross is co-founder of United Against Nuclear Iran, a group claiming non-partisan credentials in order to push the narrative of Iran's "desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons". Other than Ross and Richard C. Holbrooke, both of whom have left to join Obama's administration in important foreign policy posts, it's leadership is made up of staunchly pro-Israel neoconservatives, neoliberal interventionists and Bush hacks: R. James Woolsey, Henry Sokolski, Karen Hughes, Leslie Gelb, Walter Russel Mead - all headed by Bush 2000 lawyer and John Bolton protege Mark Wallace who along with his former Bush White House communications director wife, Nicole, was part of Sarah Palin's grooming team. As might be expected from such a grouping, it hasn't shied from hyping stories in much the same way that Iraq's WMD were hyped in the run up to the 2003 invasion.

Ross himself, as his detailled profile at RightWeb shows, has been consistent in pressuring America to act solely in Israel's interests and in pressing for war with Iran. In recent years, he's been involved in neocon-sponsored think tanks producing reports explicitly calling for a military option.

Ross also helped produce the 2008 report Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development, which was published by a study group convened by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), a policy group led by several former government officials, including Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN) and Sen. Charles Robb (D-VA). The lead drafter of the report was AEI’s Michael Rubin, an outspoken proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Other participants included Sokolski; Michael Makovsky, a former aide to Douglas Feith in the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon; Stephen Rademaker, the husband of AEI’s Danielle Pletka who worked under John Bolton in the State Department; and Kenneth Weinstein, CEO of the Hudson Institute.36

...The report advises that the new U.S. president bolster the country’s military presence in the Middle East, which would include “pre-positioning additional U.S. and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, emplacing other war material in the region, including additional missile defense batteries, upgrading both regional facilities and allied militaries, and expanding strategic partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia in order to maintain operational pressure from all directions.” In addition, the new administration should suspend bilateral cooperation with Russia on nuclear issues to pressure it to stop providing assistance to Iran’s nuclear, missile, and weapons programs. And, if the new administration agrees to hold direct talks with Tehran without insisting that the country first cease enrichment activities, it should set a pre-determined compliance deadline and be prepared to apply increasingly harsh repercussions if the deadlines are not met, leading ultimately to U.S. military strikes that would “have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”40

Calling the report a “roadmap to war,” Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service wrote, “In other words, if Tehran is not eventually prepared to permanently abandon its enrichment of uranium on its own soil—a position that is certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio—war becomes inevitable, and all intermediate steps, even including direct talks if the new president chooses to pursue them, will amount to going through the motions (presumably to gather international support for when push comes to shove).…

Steve Clemons (who I was surprised to discover was once a PNAC signator himself, as was Ross) says Ross's appointment is a quid-pro-quo for the appointment of Chas Freeman, who isn't an advocate of  "Israeli tail wags the US dog" foreign policy by any means, to chair the Intel Council. Maybe in terms of internal power-plays between Clinton and Obama, maybe even in terms of the wider Mid East...but it'll still be Ross sitting at any table with the Iranians.

Ross will report directly to Hillary Clinton - called "Madame AIPAC" by both Iranian moderates and hardliners - rather than to Obama like the other envoys. The kabuki pretense of negotiations is well nigh certain. They'll be given one shot and fail, then it'll be back to "bomb, bomb, bomb". The neowhatever hawks have already won this round, as Obama seems to havedelegated foreign policy entirely to the hawks in order to concentrate on domestic crises. Iran's leaders, even the moderates, are already braced for more of the same war hype and saber rattling, convinced by his actions that Obama is a bad faith actor - that he doesn't mean what he says.

Update: Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he was asked last year to act as a mediator by Iran in an attempt to mend the 30-year rift with America, but was rebuffed by Bush. He also says he's still willing if Obama is serious about good-faith contacts.

Comments

[Iran Affairs]

Ross was appointed as advisor to Clinton and not Presidential Envoy so there's some wriggle room there.

[Ardalan]

Nobody seems to notice that Clinton showed her middle finger to iranians. to all of them but especially to iranian-americans. (http://thearabiangulf.net/Persian_Gulf_bro-scrn.pdf)

why?

she said "the gulf". it is now part of ross' job title! anyone slightly familiar with the region would know that except when they try to kiss up to the arab states or show contempt to iranians, every western country calls it persian gulf and recognizes it as such. even bush, certainly not for appeasing the government of iran, alway called it the persian gulf.

it is like saying "f.. your mom, now lets be friends".