Guess Who Will Be Helping to Shape Iran Policy for Obama?

[leftchick]

this is beginning to suck big time. :grr:

<snip>

Meanwhile, it is rumored that among the main shapers of Obama's Iran policy will be Dennis Ross, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the think tank of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. During Ross's tenure there, the WINEP website carried a call to bomb Iran; a paper arguing that nothing bad would happen if the US did bomb Iran; and it listed as a WINEP associate Daniel Pipes, who spent most of his waking hours during the past year decrying Barack Obama as a stealth Muslim and an apostate (which was it?) and who has repeatedly said racist things about Muslims. Turning Iran policy over to the Israel lobbies, the major agitators for a US war on Iran, is a very bad idea, and if this goes forward Obama will be signalling that there will not in fact be a new US-Iran relationship.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/02/iran-obama-admin-off-to-shakey-start.html

Let the "when will we bomb Iran?" guesses for the next four years commence. :banghead:

[bunnies]

1. WTF is going on?!

This is absurd! Whats Obama thinking?!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Lemme guess.

It's going to be somebody you or I have never heard of, but he's certain proof that Barack Obama is a big sell out and will be just as bad as George W. Bush.

[The Doctor.]

30. Yes... because "helping" to shape policy actually means "in CHARGE of policy" around here.

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

49. If you've never heard of Dennis Ross, it suggests you have little clue either way.

Since ignorance is apparently strength, why do you even post on this thread?

[EFerrari]

3. Isn't he a doll? I saw that.

:wtf:

[Chulanowa]

4. I'm reluctant to buy rumors immediately

But if it pans out... I give up. Selling out his DADT promises, then hiring a warmonger for a delicate peacemaking job?

I don't know what's going on. I know we have four years for things to smooth out, but I don't want to have to deal with a first year that reminds me of the last motherfucker's first year!

[Dragonfli]

5. O Come On!!! That Asshole? This is turning into a bad novel

I only wish it were fiction.

[L0oniX]

36. It's Mystery Science Fiction Theater 2009

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Clinton, Gates, now this guy? Lotta clenched fists there. K&R

[FLAprogressive]

7. the U S of A(IPAC) baby!

[slipslidingaway]

8. Jul. 16, 2008 - Obama's Conservative Mideast Pick

"Even before Barack Obama says a word upon his arrival in Israel next week, close observers of America's role in the region will get a message from the presence in his delegation of a tall, slightly disheveled diplomat well known to the power players of the Middle East. In a region where simple words and gestures can be taken as weighty indicators of intent, Arabs and Israelis alike will see much meaning in the return of Dennis Ross...."


Ross, Shapiro slated for Obama administration
January 8, 2009

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/08/1002094/ross-shapiro-likely-to-land-govt-jobs

"WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Dennis Ross and Dan Shapiro are slated for jobs in the Barack Obama administration.

An official close to the transition team told JTA on Thursday that Shapiro, a former senior U.S. Senate staffer and the Obama official who handled outreach to the Jewish community, and Ross, President Clinton's top Middle East envoy, are "likely to have jobs with the administration."

The official commented after JTA called to confirm reports that Ross was slated to be the chief Middle East adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's secretary of state-designate, and that Shapiro would head the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. The official could not confirm those reports.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where Ross is currently a senior fellow, on Wednesday sent to the Washington Post a premature news release congratulating him on his appointment advising the secretary of state, and indicating that Ross' new appointment would outrank his previous government role. In his new capacity, Ross would supervise Obama's Middle East envoy.

The Washington Institute on Thursday refused comment on the release.

Both appointments would be welcomed in the pro-Israel community. Ross has suggested coupling Obama's pledge for outreach to Iran with tough sanctions. Shapiro was a lead in drafting the 2003 Syria Accountability Act, which imposed sanctions on Syria in part for its sponsorship of anti-Israel terrorist groups."

[slipslidingaway]

9. Iranians wary of Obama's approach

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0205/p06s01-wome.html

"...The Obama administration announced this week that it will retain Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department official who also sparked complaints from Iran when, working for Bush, he spearheaded US efforts to convince international banks as well as shipping and insurance companies to stop all dealings with Iran.

But it is Obama's expected pick to handle the Iran portfolio – former Mideast envoy Dennis Ross – that has raised most questions in Tehran. Though not officially announced, diplomats say the appointment is all but certain. In Iran, Mr. Ross has been vilified as too hawkish and too close to Israel and pro-Israel lobbies in the US to be effective.

Iran's hard-line Kayhan newspaper called Ross, who is Jewish, a "pioneer of the American-Zionist lobby," whose pick would be an "insult."


...."Of course the policy is more important than the personality," says Sadegh Kharazi, a former ambassador to Paris, who helped draft a secret 2003 Iranian offer to Washington to discuss all issues from terrorism to nuclear programs.

A Ross appointment would be "dangerous" and amounts to "shooting the confidence building with the Iranians," says Mr. Kharazi, adding that Iranian officials will be reluctant to deal with Ross. "It shows that the Americans appointed Dennis Ross by the eyes of the Israelis. It means flying to Tehran by the connecting flight via Tel Aviv. Iranians are not happy this."

[stillcool]

10. If this goes forward, as the rumors suggest...

then what will I do?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2008/10survivebush.htm
US Empire Will Survive Bush
By Arno J Mayer
Le Monde diplomatique
October 2008

The United States may emerge from the Iraq fiasco almost unscathed. Though momentarily disconcerted, the American empire will continue on its way, under bipartisan direction and mega-corporate pressure, and with evangelical blessings. It is a defining characteristic of mature imperial states that they can afford costly blunders, paid for not by the elites but the lower orders. Predictions of the American empire's imminent decline are exaggerated: without a real military rival, it will continue for some time as the world's sole hyperpower.

But though they endure, overextended empires suffer injuries to their power and prestige. In such moments they tend to lash out, to avoid being taken for paper tigers. Given Washington's predicament in Iraq, will the US escalate its intervention in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia or Venezuela? The US has the strongest army the world has ever known. Preponderant on sea, in the air and in space (including cyberspace), the US has an awesome capacity to project its power over enormous distances with speed, a self-appointed sheriff rushing to master or exploit real and putative crises anywhere on earth. In the words of the former secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld: "No corner of the world is remote enough, no mountain high enough, no cave or bunker deep enough, no SUV fast enough to protect our enemies from our reach."

The US spends more than 20% of its annual budget on defence, nearly half of the spending of the rest of the world put together. It's good for the big US corporate arms manufacturers and their export sales. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, purchase billions of dollars of state-of-the-art ordnance. Eyes and ears of a borderless empire

[leftchick]

13. I would love to fucking leave

between the neolib policies taking shape at the expense of average americans and their health I want outa here. So much for an opposition party. Hope? Change? apparently those are great marketing words.

:puke:

[stillcool]

17. Here's what he "should" do...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_Dummies.html
American Empire For Dummies
A talk given in Boulder Colorado
by William Blum
www.doublestandards.org/, October 21, 2002
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global interventions have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but - believe it or not - a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to our victims and repair the damage from our bombings. There would be enough money. Do you know what one year's military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

[Jane Austin]

19. Yeah, that expansion of children's health coverage and

equal pay rights for women are just exactly the same as before.

Except, not.

[leftchick]

22. my son is a type one Diabetic

and would not qualify if/when we lose our insurance. I think it is a good first step in a long process that should culminate in Single Payer Health care for all. But those pesky millions from the Health Care INDUSTRY will always rule the day.

[Jane Austin]

23. We'll see.

I wish you and your son the very best.

Diabetes is a terrible disease.

[leftchick]

27. thank you

Even with our so called 'great insurance' coverage I have to fight every week with the Ins. Co. over getting his supplies and sometimes have to pay out of pocket. And it is getting so much worse. I know Canadians do not have to go through this. :(

[L0oniX]

35. Heheh yea and meanwhile North Korea will resume the war with the south.

[Prometheus Bound]

42. There's a serious error in that article, likely grammatical, but it affects meaning.

Article: "The US spends more than 20% of its annual budget on defence, nearly half of the spending of the rest of the world put together."

Should be:
"...as much as the spending of the rest of the world put together."
or
"...as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined."
or
"...half of the world total."

2007 Military expenditure
world total: $1,470,000,000,000
US total: $713,100,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[stillcool]

47. oops..there was a serious error..

in my response. I replied about the wrong article!

[TwilightGardener]

11. If true, I don't know what to think.

[The Doctor.]

33. Think, "Gosh, I wonder just who ELSE will have input on Iran policy...

and should I take that to mean that Obama will do whatever they tell him to?"

That's pretty much the next logical question.

[spanone]

12. it will be the President Obama Policy in iran.

[TwilightGardener]

14. This is a diplomat who has to meet with them face to face--

or at least deal with them on some level--he has already shown where he personally stands, and where his agenda lies, and they don't trust him. Why not pick someone who isn't an AIPAC spokesman and start clean?

[The Doctor.]

31. Oh, he's going to become a diplomat?

So... how many other diplomats will Obama be appointing to 'help shape policy on Iran'?

Is Ross it?

[leftchick]

15. lol!

I was waiting for that 'hope' post.

[The Doctor.]

32. I know. Can't people see that Ross is being put in full control of Iran policy?

That's series!!11!

[leftchick]

43. ahhh the old blind faith theory

that has worked so well so far. What is the definition of insanity again?

:crazy:

[The Doctor.]

45. What's 'blind' is assuming that a rumor about a possible advisor means

that ME policy is already in the hands of AIPAC.

THAT'S prejudiced assumption.

What's rational, otoh, is pointing out that this rumor does not necessarily mean we should start panicking.


"Handwringing panic" = irrational

"Pensive deliberation" = rational.

Double :crazy: :crazy: to you.

[tan guera]

52. ME policy

has been in the hands of AIPAC for some time now.

[The Doctor.]

55. Sadly, I can't disagree.

[JackRiddler]

50. Yeah, two thousand appointed officials are just for show, everyone...

just magically intuits the president's best intentions and executes it faithfully. It absolutely doesn't matter who you put in these jobs, so you might as well pick a bunch of well-known imperialist blowhards like Ross.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

56. So, all of his picks are neo-cons?

I did not know that. :think:

[JackRiddler]

57. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

:eyes: Strawman, much?

[The Doctor.]

58. No, it's not what you said...

it's what you insinuated.

So, he's had 2000 picks or so... right?

How many of them are, in you humble opinion, 'bad'?

[bushmeister0]

16. Gosh, you've to figure Kissinger is on a short-list somewhere.

Maybe, a special envoy to Latin America or something? He could take care of that Chavez problem down there. Or Cuban transition to democracy czar, there's a good one! Human rights czar, perhaps??

[dgibby]

24. Kissinger would be better suited to head up FDA

where he could busy himself culling the "useless eaters" and poisoning the rest of us!

[Mosby]

18. Ross is a Democrat

He worked under 4 different Sec of States and 2 presidents, including Clinton. He has received numerous awards for his work on the I/P peace process.

[EFerrari]

20. George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom.n/t

[girl gone mad]

21. and Kissinger has Nobel Peace Prize.

Awards and honors are ever so meaningful.

:sarcasm:

[leftchick]

25. only because

he works for AIPAC/US interests. Heaven forbid we actually get someone willing to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes democratically elected Hamas. But obviously Israel does not want peace but LAND.

[Malikshah]

38. And? As stated already, Tenet got a medal. Ross is a dishonest

disingenuous hack who has hurt the process over the years. His current position with WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) should be enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone who hopes for any sort of resolution of the issue.

Ross out and out lied about Camp David II along with Bill Clinton.

Obama needs to get his head on about the I/P conflict. Unfortunately, AIPAC, et al. still rule the roost when it comes to the I/P issue.

Candidly, I didn't expect much from Obama on this. US policy makers have a tin ear, selective hearing and sight, and most definitely selective morals and ethics when it comes to Middle East policy.

It will, alas, remain a one-sided affair.

Don't try and sell Ross as anything but more of the same bullshit when it comes to the Middle East.

[JackRiddler]

51. Also true of Perle and Wolfowitz, back when they worked for Scoop Jackson.

Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
The Confederacy
Boss Tweed
LBJ, butcher of Vietnam
Joe Lieberman, until the moment he lost the primary

... all Democrats! Hooray!

Is the right party affiliation all that one needs to know about a politician, before delivering one's brain to their care?

[ShortnFiery]

26. Daniel Pipes!?! IMO, the closest entity to *evil incarnate.*

:scared: :nuke:

[leftchick]

28. no shit

except "the dumbest motherfucker" kind of evil. Scary.

[aldo]

29. Ghastly, just ghastly

nt

[The Doctor.]

34. Let's try some "reason" and "logic"....

So, there's a rumor out there on the internets that some AIPAC hawk might have some input on foreign policy regarding Iran.

How do we know that it's only a rumor right now?

There's a really tricky, very subtle clue hidden in the article;

"Meanwhile, it is rumored that among the main shapers of Obama's Iran policy will be Dennis Ross"

I understand it's hard to spot, but read it through a few times and you might be able to pick it out.


Now, assuming that the rumor is true, what of the following three assumptions should we make;

1) "Obama is likely going to listen to some folks, Ross among them, about Iran policy, and then make up his mind."

2) "Ross is the only person that Obama will listen too about Iran, and then he'll make up his mind."

3) "OH NOES! Obama put Ross in charge of Iran policy! Obama is a AIPAC neo-con! ALL HOPE IS LOST!"


Now kids... which one of the above three employs the most reason and rational thought?


Anyone?

[marketcrazy1]

37. I dont know about you

but i am getting pretty tired of constantly having flesh out why Obama`s bad choices are or may be good choices.... I know it`s only been a few weeks but WTF!???!!!

[The Doctor.]

39. One more time...

What does this choice actually mean?

I'm amazed at how easily outrage can be stirred up with a little rumor and insinuation.

[leftchick]

41. easy

the "rumor" comes from Juan Cole. And I have not seen any progressives in Obama's picks, only DLC/AIPAC/Neoliberal Hawks. So I will let experience so far, indicate to me, he will indeed choose another bad pick.

[The Doctor.]

44. I'll put you down for '2' then.

With caveats.

:D

[Individualist]

40. I'm not surprised

[ProgressIn2008]

46. Thank you. Ross has been talked about for some time and besides, this is who Obama is. nt

[Diclotican]

48. leftchick

leftchick

Regardless of who is the new advicor to how US should Iran, the new advicor should give the first advice, to sit down with the iranians in good Faith, and try to work things out before the president is pressing for military solutions.. Iran is to big at the moment to be bombed to obedience and the US have not the clout in the arsenal, if you do not want to go nuclear then, to get Iranian to understand _your way_ of things, just by bombing Iran..

Then, if the other part are not willing to talk in good faith... Then it is another story I guess.. But I would say in 9 of 10 chances the iranian is willing to sit down and talk, even if it is nothing more than a talk over a coffee in an cafe in Paris.. I would advice mr Obama just to talk to the other side, and have not to much hope about revolution the Middle east by arms.. 7 year with mr Bush have proved that to be a horrible wast of resources and manpower. And I would guess the iranian would take US far More serious if you was to sit down, and talk to them as grown ups.. Have worked WITH, and been a "troubled teenager" myself I know that if you are been talked to as an grown up, or at least as an sentient being you work mutch better, than yelling and treating with spanking if the other part are not doing as you want them to do... And the Iranian is similar to this, just on a STATE level.. A country who want to be respected and not threatens by bullies. If US, who have most again Iran at least tried to treat Iran with "some" respect, then the government in Iran want to step down, and to halt the nuclear program they have, and who US and mutch of the world really fear that is for made Iran a nuclear weapon. In 2003 when mr Bush was bussy to go to war with Iraq, Iran wanted to halt the nuclear program, and to get IAEA in to se what the Iranian really wanted.. Today we know that the Bush administration, just showed them the door, and just was not in the mood to talk with the iranian government at all... I would call THAT a golden possibility thrown out the door if anything else

Today I do not know, I believe the iranian believe that US is an far more weaker position to play the war card with Iran, than it was in 2003.. And that if they really are to make a nuclear weapon, the US are in no position to really challenge Iran to it. Because if they do, 140-150.000 american soldiers can be a pawn in Iraq. I doubt that even Saudi-Arabia would have 150.000 soldiers on their soil, regards of how "friendly" the royal house is with the US. If they do, it would end in some really bloody civil war scenario.. And if the US forces was to trying to leave for the meditarian, they have to run true Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. And without Israel I really doubt that either of them are willing to let them true.. In the antiquity Cambisyes was destroyed in the Egypt not by an army, but by the desert on their way to a holy shrine.. Allergy more than 100.000 persians var killed there, and a whole army was swallowed by the desert.. I do not know if the truth is that, but either if it was not 100.000 persians who was killed, it was many thousands who just vanished in the egyptian desert..

That I want to came to here is that the US in many cases are in the same position as the Persians was in that period.. You have the biggest, most powerfully army in the world - but even then you are in problem. No one can serious attack you in front, and believe to win the day, but if they just hit and run, they would manage to wear the enemy down sooner or later.. And if the enemy want to leave, as the Persians in the end did in Egypt, you can in many cases kill the army by denier them all what they need.. In an desert one thing is more important than every hing else. WATER. And a modern army as the US forces, you need a LOT of water, not just to the soldiers, but to a lot of the equipment too.. If 150.000 have to run true the desert to the meditarian it would end in something of a catastrophe for the US, because it is not THAT many water holes in the Iraqi desert to talk about..

Off course, today you have the modern world of tecnic, like GPS, who you can use to travel in a straight even in a hilly landscape. And you have also the help of all the modern air power to protect you from your enemies.. But even if it never was to be an persian catastrophe it would not be without many casualities... To many of you ask me then..
And then you also have the problem with Afghanistan, who the allied forces have to leave into Pakistan, if they want to run for it, if the talibans was to be to powerfully.. And Pakistan have in any cases been proven to be a friend with an agenda - and not always on OUR side...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[BunkerHill24]

53. Thank you leftchick for sharing this with us and putting it out there for all to see

Former CIA Middle East station chief Robert Baer was asked about the likelihood of Dennis Ross's appointment as Obama's envoy for the region. His candid answer surprised me somewhat.

Here is the Q & A from the IPS news:

IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his promises?"

RB: Dennis Ross - the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won't betray them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He's Jewish, he's been honest with the Israelis; he's gone along with their projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis know they won't be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in, some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn't know, they would immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political blowbacks."


http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45526



K&R

[Kaleko]

64. Thanks for providing an insider's perspective like Robert Baer's

to the usual knee jerk proceedings.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

54. K&R

[LSK]

59. Not to crash your party or anything, but I think Obama has his own policy

[David Zephyr]

60. I trust Obama on this.

Obama will bring the most enlightened leadership on the Middle East we've ever had.

[Pastiche423]

61. Being a noted supporter of the Iraq war

makes for the most enlightened leadership on the Middle East we've ever had?

Does. Not. Compute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross

[PurityOfEssence]

62. Did you notice Holbrooke give a nice public huzzah to John Negroponte?

Okay, so that's the guy "doing" Afghanistan, but Negroponte is literally covered with blood; he's an old Reagan hand and somehow he's still part of the family. Hardly "changey", now is it?

[dysfunctional press]

63. the guess who??? couldn't they at least get jeff 'the skunk' baxter...?

at least he knows a little something about missile defense.

so- why will a decades-old canadian rock band be helping to shape iran policy...? :shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. that is as disheartening as the appointment of George Mitchell is heartening

Let us pray that the realism and sincerity of the George Michell wing of influence for peace - peace rooted in mutual respect and mutual interest prevails over the failed and blind ideology of Dennis Ross and the slightly watered-down neocon wing of influence for subjugation, intransigence and rejectionism - Dennis Ross, the wing of "more of the same", giving lip service to peace while maneuvering for policies which absolutely, positively guarantee a state of permanent war.