Dennis Ross is not Good News for Peace

[Truth2Tell]

On February 23 President Obama appointed Dennis Ross to be the “Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia.” Ross will be leaving his present position as a “consultant” to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP or simply Washington Institute), a “think tank” affiliate of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in order to become what insiders have described as Obama's "point man" on Iran.

This is not good news.

Some background from Cal State Professor Sasan Fayazmanesh in CounterPunch:

Who is Dennis Ross, what does he advocate, how was he positioned to become the adviser on Iran in the Obama Administration and what will he do to Iran if he gets the chance? Let me briefly review the case.

Dennis Ross is best known as the dishonest broker who led the so-called negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians during the Clinton Administration. He was “Israel’s lawyer,” to use Aaron David Miller’s apt description of the role that Ross’s “negotiating team” played in the Clinton era, particularly in 1999-2000.

Ross, along with Martin Indyk—who was Clinton’s national security advisor and the US Ambassador to Israel—is a co-founder of the Washington Institute. After leaving office in 2000, Ross became the director of the WINEP. Once the 2008 presidential election approached, Ross jockeyed for a position, left his directorship job and became a “Consultant” to the institute. Originally, Ross and Indyk represented one wing of the WINEP, a wing which appeared to be close to the Israeli Labor Party. Another wing, closer to the Likud Party, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, consisted of individuals such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, individuals who played a pivotal role in planning the invasion of Iraq. The difference between the Likud and the Labor wing of the Washington Institute was mostly one of the means employed rather than the end sought. Both wings of the WINEP, similar to Kadima, strove toward a “Greater Israel” (Eretz Yisrael) that includes all or most of “Judea and Samaria.” They both saw Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance as the biggest obstacle in achieving that goal. As such, the charge that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and posing an “existential threat” to Israel became a convenient tool for “containing” Iran and stopping its support for the Palestinians. What separated the two sides was that the Labor wing believed that sanctions will eventually bring Iran to its knees, cause either a popular uprising to overthrow the Iranian “regime” or make Iran ripe for a US invasion. The Likud wing, however, had very little patience for sanctions. It wanted an immediate result, a series of military attacks against Iran, replacing the Iranian “regime” with a US-Israeli friendly government, as was done in Iraq. With the emergence of the Kadima Party in Israel in 2005, which brought together the likes of the Likud Party member Ariel Sharon and Labor Party member Shimon Peres, the differences between the two wings of the Washington Institute has mostly disappeared. Clinton’s Middle East men, such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Richard Holbrooke, are hardly distinguishable from Bush’s men, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. But since the latter group is temporarily out of office, the former is filling in. Ross has become the designated senior Israeli lobby man in Obama’s Administration. He has no expertise when it comes to Iran. But he knows that for the cause of Eretz Yisrael Iran must be contained; and given this goal, he knows how to recite, ad nauseum, all the usual lines of Israel and its lobby groups against Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan02272009.html

Ross's appointment doesn't come as much of a surprise, considering his role in crafting Obama's aggressive stance toward Iran during the campaign, and his role as Obama's envoy to the Likudnik Lobby. Ali Gharib of InterPress Services made the prediction last month over at HuffPo and laid out some additional background:

...

During the campaign, Obama faced an onslaught of attacks on his Muslim background and insinuations that he harbored sympathies to enemies of Israel. Enter Dennis Ross. The veteran diplomat is widely believed to have crafted Obama's campaign address to the American-Israeli Political Action committee in which the candidate called for an undying commitment to America's alliance with Israel and ensured that Jerusalem would remain "undivided," a controversial proposal that contradicted President George W. Bush's "Road Map For Peace." Having helped consolidate Jewish support for the young senator, Ross positioned himself for a prominent position in the upcoming administration.

Ross' hard line on Iran raised eyebrows. In the heat of the presidential race, Ross co-chaired an ad hoc group called United Against A Nuclear Iran. Members of the organization comprised a who's who of neocons and Iran hawks, including former Bush adviser Karen Hughes, neoconservative scholar Fouad Ajami, and Jim Woolsey, the former CIA chief who clamored for an invasion of Iraq well before Bush assumed power. In September, Ross added his signature to a report demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment activities as a precondition for negotiation. Joining Ross in support of the statement were arch-neoconservatives Michael Makovsky and the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, with consultation from Patrick Clawson, the Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank formed by AIPAC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-gharib/dennis-ross-as-iran-envoy_b_162116.html

So what's wrong with this "United Against A Nuclear Iran," which Ross co-chaired, aside from from being a nest of neocons? Well to begin with, they seem to be pushing the same sort of bald-faced, unabashed lies about the Iranian nuclear program that the neocon usual suspects pushed about Iraqi WMD prior to 2003. http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/video/view/4">Check out this slick, and thoroughly dishonest video over at their oohhh so scary anti-Iranian Website. Just keep some of the following facts in mind as you watch:

- The IAEA has never said that Iran produced "highly-enriched uranium" as repeatedly asserted in this video - even now Iran can now barely manage to produce low-enriched uranium that cannot be used to make bombs.

- Iran's nuclear enrichment program was not "hidden" nor a "secret" - in fact it started in the 1970s with the cooperation of France. After the revolution, not only did Iran openly and repeatedly announce its enrichment plans on national radio, Iran had openly sought to cooperate with the IAEA in developing the program until the US blocked it.

- Iran has never "obstructed inspectors" as claimed and in fact it has allowed more inspections that its safeguards agreement requires.

- Iran's nuclear program makes perfect economic sense, which is why the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place.

- Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is perfectly legal, operated under IAEA safeguards, and IAEA head ElBaradei himself has said that it poses no concern.

- Iran has never "violated" the Non-Proliferation Treaty In fact, IAEA reports on Iran have consistently stated that there is no evidence that Iran diverted nuclear material for weapons use.

Extensive documentation of all the above facts is available over at the Website of http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/6339">The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.

And that's just one video representing only the tip of these guy's Iranian demonization iceberg. Dennis Ross not only participated in spreading these lies, he spearheaded the lie machine.

But that's just lately. What about this "Washington Institute?" Joel Beinin gave a nice summary in LeMonde back in 2003, including a tad about Dennis Ross and his role in the monkey-wrenching the Oslo peace process, events which really call for a whole post of their own:

TEL AVIV’S INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
The pro-Sharon thinktank
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy influences the thinking of the United States government and has a near monopoly on the supply of ’expert’ witnesses to the media. After almost two decades of relative moderation, the institute is now drifting toward the Israeli right.
...

Winep has close links with both leading Democrats and Republicans. Its first major success was the publication of the report Building for Peace: An American Strategy for the Middle East on the eve of the 1988 presidential elections. The report urged the incoming administration to "resist pressures for a procedural breakthrough until conditions have ripened.". Six members of the study group that produced the report joined the administration of President Bush Sr, which adopted this recipe: not to change until change was unavoidable. So the US acceded to Israel’s refusal to negotiate directly with the Palestine Liberation Organization during and after the 1991 Madrid conference despite the PLO’s recognition of Israel at the November 1988 session of the Palestine National Council.

The Clinton administration continued this policy. As a result, from 1991 to 1993, 11 rounds of US-sponsored negotiations between Israel and "non-PLO" Palestinians produced no result. When Israel became serious about negotiating with the Palestinians it met official PLO representatives in Oslo, behind the back of the Clinton administration...

-snip

Dennis Ross is another Winep figure with major responsibility for Oslo. He was a key aide to Secretary of State James Baker in formulating Middle East policy during the Bush Sr administration, and then became President Clinton’s special coordinator for the peace process. After retiring from government service Ross became the director of Winep...

http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/06beinin

So Dennis Ross is back again. Like Back to the Future. Or Back in Black. Or Back room deals, or Back door policy, or Back-tracking commitments, or Back stories, or Back slapping. Back like that.

Pray for peace, but plan for war. On this particular front I'm afraid there isn't much change to believe in.

[tan guera]

1. No change, maybe a lot worse!

[Kip Humphrey]

2. The reason Iran is enriching uranium

The type of reactor Iran acquired from the French & Russia (French engineering, Russian financing) was a French design first generation breeder reactor (not a fast breeder which uses recycled enriched plutonium). The French breeder is more efficient but requires non-bomb grade enrichment for Iran to utilize its low grade uranium deposits for fuel.

Iran set a course toward nuclear powered electric generation under the Shah with American encouragement & backing. GE bid for but lost the reactor contract to the French because the French reactor could utilize Iran's low grade uranium deposits through non-bomb grade enrichment (and the French reactor was both cheaper and a safer design). The American reactor required Iran to purchase fuel from the United States.

Nuclear power was a key part of the Shah's Iran modernization program allowing full electrification of Iran while preserving Iran's oil for export for much needed foreign exchange. At the time, Iran's nuclear program had the full backing of the American government (Nixon & Kissinger).

The nuclear bomb rhetoric began during the Iran-Iraq war and consisted of a war of bravado between Saddam and the Iranian High Council (both were bluffing of course but each wanted the other to think they were about to produce a nuclear bomb - the ultimate insurance against invasion).

[Truth2Tell]

8. Thanks for the accurate summary Kip! nt

[slipslidingaway]

3. K&R n/t

[slipslidingaway]

4. Rice: U.S. will seek to end any 'illicit' nuclear ambitions by Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/26/us.iran/

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- "The Obama administration will work to stop any "illicit" nuclear aspirations by Iran, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday...

...In response to Rice's speech, Iran's ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter to the president of the Security Council, Yukio Takasu, defending Iran's nuclear program and challenging U.S. allegations about the program.

"It is unfortunate that, yet again, we are hearing the same tired, unwarranted and groundless allegations that used to be unjustifiably and futilely repeated by the previous U.S. administration," Khazaee wrote..."

[Truth2Tell]

6. I hope Obama keeps these folks in check.

I figure there is a slight possibility he chose Ross to give himself credibility/cover with the establishment while actually pushing detente with Iran.

Long shot though.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Me too...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/25/why_the_diplomats_are_having_a_hard_time_explaining_dennis_rosss_job


"...In a September 2008 paper (pdf) published by the Center for a New American Security, "Iran: Assessing US strategic options," Ross recommended a hybrid approach toward Iran of engagement without preconditions but with pressures. "When I say engagement without conditions, I mean that there would be no preconditions for the United States talking to Iran," Ross wrote. "Iran would not, for example, have to suspend its uranium enrichment first. But to avoid Iran misreading this as a sign of weakness, pressures must be maintained. <...>

"So how to talk and preserve the pressures with­out making either side appear weak?" Ross continued. "One way to do so would be for the United States to go to the Europeans and offer to join the talks with Iran without Iran having to suspend uranium enrich­ment. To avoid misleading the Iranians into thinking they had won, the price for our doing this would not be with Iran but with Europe. The European Union would adopt more stringent sanctions on investments, credits, and technol­ogy transfer vis-à-vis Iran in general or at least on the Iranian energy sector. The Iranians would be informed that the United States is joining the talks but that these sanctions are now being adopted by all European countries."

State Department sources said that Ross was deeply involved in the Iran policy review, but was not the only figure by any means. Other key officials with a stake in the policy, they said, include Secretary Clinton, Undersecretary Burns (who has been serving as the U.S. envoy to the multilateral talks on Iran's nuclear program and met with Iranian officials in Geneva last summer), and officials from State's Iran office...


UPDATE: David Ignatius writes in his Washington Post column Thursday: "The administration official who oversees the Iran file is William Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs. Although Dennis Ross will take a broad strategic look at the region in his new post of State Department adviser, senior officials stress that Burns is the address for Iran policy."

[slipslidingaway]

5. Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke, Original Co-Founders

& Former Co-Chairman

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/about/leadership


Our mission

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/about/mission

"The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran should concern every American and be unacceptable to the community of nations. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a danger to world peace..."