Published on October 23rd, 2008 | by Jim Lobe
29Top Obama Adviser Signs on to Roadmap to War with Iran
If you haven’t seen it already, check out the op-ed by former Sens. Daniel Coats and Charles Robb in the Washington Post today, entitled “Stopping a Nuclear Tehran.” It is the summary of a report issued last month by an organization called The Bipartisan Policy Center (at whose website you can find the full report), and it amounts to a roadmap to war with Iran to which a senior Middle East adviser in the Obama campaign — namely, Dennis Ross — has apparently signed on.
[UPDATE: Make sure you also read in this connection today's New York Times article by David Sanger, particularly the part about the purported e-mail from Obama that was routed through an unidentified "aide," who I presume to be Ross. The coincidence of the appearance of this article with the Coats-Robb op-ed suggests an effort to box Obama into a pre-election position. The Iran part of the story by Sanger, who considers himself a foreign-policy player, as well as a reporter, tracks the report's narrative quite nicely.]
While Coats and Robb were the co-chairs of the task force that produced the report, “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development,” the main authors appear to have been the Center’s project director, Michael Makovsky, and Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who listed the report as his work on the AEI website earlier this month. Makovsky, of course, is the younger brother of David Makovsky, the former head and currently senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which has acted more or less as a “think tank” for the so-called “Israel Lobby” over the 20-some years since it was created as a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Michael, who reportedly emigrated to Israel in 1989, served under Doug Feith at the Pentagon where he was part of the team that helped manipulate the intelligence to facilitate the path to war in Iraq. Rubin, of course, also worked in Rumsfeld’s office at the same time.
Now, you would expect a report like this, which is clearly aimed at the transition team of an incoming president, from hard-line neo-cons with a distinctly Likudist bent like Makovsky and Rubin, or, for that matter, task force member Steve Rademaker, the spouse of AEI’s Danielle Pletka, who also worked under John Bolton in the State Department. But what really drew my attention to the report when I first heard about it two or three weeks ago, was the fact that Dennis Ross, who is a senior foreign-policy to Barack Obama, also signed on to the report as a task-force member. Ross, who previously served as the chief Israel-Palestinian negotiator for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, has been associated with WINEP in various positions since he left public service, although, unlike Makovsky or Rubin, his sympathies have leaned more to Labour than to Likud, at least in the Israeli context.
According to a variety of sources, Ross was the main drafter of Obama’s pander (except on the settlers) to AIPAC’s annual convention here in May and has since raised his hopes for a top post in an Obama administration, possibly even secretary of state. Frankly, I doubt that the latter prospect is realistic, but — and here’s the main point — I have it from several sources close to the campaign that he is more eager to gain control over the Iran portfolio (possibly special envoy) than to work on the problem that he knows best from his long experience, the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If he succeeds in his quest and if this report is any reflection of his views, then the U.S. could very well find itself at war with Iran within a remarkably short period of time.
I leave it to you to read the column or, better, the executive summary of the report. But I would highlight just a few of its major points on which Ross should be closely questioned if Obama should win the election and considers Ross for any post that would have anything to do with Iran policy:
– A strategy of deterrence, if Iran became a “nuclear-capable” state, would not necessarily work because of the “Islamic Republic’s extremist ideology.”
— No agreement can be reached that would permit Iran to enrich uranium on its own territory under any circumstances, including even under the strictest international inspections regime.
— A “grand bargain” with Iran cannot be worked out in the time that remains before Iran builds a stockpile of 20 kgs of highly enriched uranium 6 kgs of plutonium which would make it technically “nuclear weapons-capable” and which thus must be unacceptable to the U.S.
— The U.S. should be willing to suspend all bilateral nuclear co-operation with Russia in order to pressure it to cooperate on Iran; that is, lending Washington full diplomatic support and refusing to provide additional assistance to Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs or to sell it advanced conventional-weapons systems.
— The U.S. should maintain a constant dialogue with Israel because “…(o)nly if Israeli policymakers believe that U.S. and European policymakers will ensure that the Islamic Republic does not gain nuclear weapons will the Israelis be unlikely to strike Iran independently.” In other words, unless the U.S. is prepared to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel will likely do so without seeking a green light from Washington.
— If the next administration agrees to enter into direct talks with Iran without insisting on its suspension of enrichment, it must set a pre-determined deadline for compliance with its demands, after which it should be prepared to enforce a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports, followed, if Iran still does not agree, by a blockade of its oil exports. If that does not have the desired effect or if Iran retaliated in some way, the U.S. should be prepared to launch a military strike that would “have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.” Such an attack would be followed immediately by “providing food and medical assistance within Iran…” [!!!]
— To convey his seriousness both to Iran and to the international community, the new president should begin building up the U.S. military presence in the region “the first day (he) enters office…” Specifically this would involve “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.” The report goes on to note that “the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan offers distinct advantages in any possible confrontation with Iran. The United States can bring in troops and material to the region under the cover of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, thus maintaining a degree of strategic and tactical surprise.” [Emphasis added in light of recent concerns raised in Iraq about the Status of Forces Agreement.]
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 — then 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). While I would certainly not be surprised if such an approach were adopted by a McCain administration, what is a top Obama adviser doing signing on to it?
About the Author
Jim Lobe is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration. The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS), Lobe has also written for Al Jazeera English, Foreign Policy In Focus, Alternet, Tompaine.com, and was featured in BBC and ABC television documentaries about motivations for the US invasion of Iraq. Read his complete biography here.
Related Posts
WaPo Really Thinks U.S. Should Be World’s Policeman →
On Ambassador Sherman’s Testimony on Iran →
Framing Iran: Media Coverage Echoes Some Iraq Problems →
When, oh when, will we see an end to this breathtaking arrogance and eternal bullying from America? Deeply wounded by its own corruption and greed, it still insists on setting the world on fire; and for what? Because it can? Because its leaders have watched too many Western movies?
Do these neo-con idiots who have never served a day in defense of their country – perhaps they didn’t know if that was Israel or America – who seek only self-aggrandizement and riches, who have never been right about anything, really think America can emerge from a barbarous genocide in Iran unscathed? Can they really be so stupid? Sadly, yes, they can. And both Obama and McCain are more than willing to be their front men.
The myth of American exceptionalism is no myth. The body count of the American Empire far exceeds anything the Catholic Church or any of the previous ‘rulers of the known world’ managed to achieve.
Hopefully, one human being will survive, so a tombstone can be set up on this once beautiful world. It should read. Planet Earth. Former home of Homo Sapiens. Destroyed by American Hubris, Stupidity and Greed!
Sir,
Very interesting, but not too surprizing. It is amazing that Israeli-americans, (small “a” intentional), cannot see the writing on the wall. The hand of AIPAC, and many other manipulative, selfish “interest” groups grows weaker by the hour. The Republic is turning against such greedy, aggrandizing behavior from such groups. Other worries abound.
Afganistan is close to becoming a disaster, while Iraq is a blot on the honor, and the common sense, of the United States. That AIPAC is trying to have a foot in both presidential campaigns is not surprizing…indeed, it would be surprizing were it not so. However, the Democrats are not nearly so easily led as the dupes that make up the “evangelical” community, or, to be fair, a large part of it. But they, too, are learning. No Middle East peace will ever happen as long as Tel Aviv believes that it rules Washington, and more and more thoughtful Christians realize that.
With “friends” like Israel, who needs enemies?
Jim, I think you are attaching too much importance to the fact that Ross is a member of the Task Force. It is not the case that being a member of it implies automatic support for all its positions, is it?
You increase the miasma around Ross by citing this remark from by David Sanger: “Obama, the candidate who has expressed far more willingness to sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, said in an e-mail message passed on by an aide that in any final deal he would not allow Iran to produce uranium on Iranian soil, the same hard-line view enunciated by the Bush administration.” and drawing our attention to “particularly the part about the purported e-mail from Obama that was routed through an unidentified “aide,” who I presume to be Ross.”
Finally you inform us that you “have it from several sources close to the campaign that he is more eager to gain control over the Iran portfolio (possibly special envoy) than to work on the problem that he knows best from his long experience, the Israel-Palestinian conflict.”
All this sounds a little speculative to me. There is an amazing chorus of voices from all over the political map at the moment, all trying for some reason to obscure the obvious fact that the neocons want to start a nuclear world war and the neolibs do not. I am surprised you cannot see that.
This is just another example of how Obama is perpetrating the biggest political bamboozle of the century. “Change”? Not hardly!
And what are the Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians doing while all of this is going on?
Counting the millions upon millions of dollars they have made teaching the perverse theological doctrines which are making such a war inevitable; which means that they are really not all that different from the weapons manufacturers, who are counting the billions upon billions of dollars they have made by creating the weapons which make such a war even possible.
Hi Jim:
Dennis Ross has an interview in today’s Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030931.html
“Iran is storing highly enriched uranium” and other blah blah.
My take on this:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/10/dennis-ross-pre.html
Unless Iran is occupied and a puppet government is installed in Tehran, no Iranian government, regardless of its leaning – democratic, theocratic, or otherwise – would dare to abandon Iran’s uranium enrichment program. The US and the European have offered Iran what a European diplomat has called “a beautiful but empty box of chocolate.” They expect Iran to give up hard physical facts on the ground, namely, their uranium enrichment facilities, in return for some vague promises for the future. The U.S. and the Europeans do not even have a good track record when it comes to fullfilling their promises – remember that they promised, for example, Russia that they would not expand NATO into the Warsaw Pact territory, but they did. The Iranians are not naive or stupid. They follow everything and are fully aware of everything.
It must also be recognized that the Iran’s armed forces have been ready for a war for sometime. The U.S. and/or Israel can start a war with Iran, but will not be able to dictate its end. It would be Iran, and only Iran, which would ba able to finish the war at their own choosing. That would mean a war in the entire Middle East
Great job, Jim. I wrote a small piece the other day about Ross and Iran. This is important stuff and I hope it gets the circulation it deserves.
Ira Glunts
There´s ZERO EVIDENCE that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The result of attacking Iran (AND FOR NO REASON AT ALL, just sheer madness) will be a Depression that will bring us back to 1932. Do the Americans really long for that ?
Mr. Lobe –
Perhaps you are aware, or if not, would be interested to know, that WINEP, to which you refer in your column, released its own task force report several months ago (the Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Israel Relations) that supported the notion of preventative action against Iran.
Among those who signed on endorsing the Report were advisors from both the Obama and McCain camps – Anthony Lake and Susan Rice, with regards to the former.
Mr. Lobe,
I’m greatful for your post and review of major issues found in the Obama camp.
In short it would clearly appear as follows:
“CHANGE” = No Change but more of the same.
here the link to a fine review in the new statesman of a history of western intervention in afghanistan:
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/10/afghanistan-british-taliban
obambi will be another two or maybe even three wars at one and the same time president. fooled again folks, sheep keep going into the fold.
My guess would be that Ross promised, at a whole series of synagogue events in Florida, that he would push as hard as possible for the most aggressive policy possible on Iran, starting from the maximum demand, which is “bomb first and ask questions afterwards”, but that in the administration for which he expects to be working, it will be a lot harder. This would be no less than the diplomatic truth. He will be there in the Obama team playing the part of powerless hawk. He will be able to say with perfect honesty that he is pushing as hard as possible for the maximum option at any given point, but he will diplomatically refrain from admitting that the ‘hawk’ role is purely decorative. This is not in my opinion going to be a warmongering administration, because the various main sectors of capital in the US have become highly polarised, with all the ‘petrodollar-weapondollar coalition’ behind the GOP, and everyone else behind the Dems.
Dennis Ross is an Israel-firster — whether Labor or Likud does not matter. Such folks will help bring down the American Empire — which may not be bad after all!
Pingback: Islam And The West Opinions Of A Kashmiri Nomad
Sometimes I am amazed at the utter audacity of the neo-conservative movement.
Not content with directly and in-directly being responsible for the death and destruction that has become modern day Iraq, they are now trying the same use the same old bags tricks with Iran. Namely the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
If Americans fall for their deception a second time then really they only have themselves to blame for the “blowback” that any military strike on Iran will entail.
Remember folks there is always more than one way to crack a nut.
Just to clarify in no way was my last comment a justification for Iranian violence that will occur in the event of any western military strike.
It is however a plea for those whose interest is peace to exhaust all avenues before any recourse to an attack is made.
The situation is delicate and needs a delicate hand to make the Iranians see the benefits of the western point of view.
If we follow the neo-cons blindly they will once again plunge the region into a new round of blood letting. A situation that must be avoided to the up most by all.
Kashmiri, you sound like a reasonable person.
But listen to me, there are NO other way to crack the mullahs; all “other ways” have been tried and exhausted in the last 8 years. They are going for the A-bomb, can you imagine? A-bomb in the hands of lunatic mullahs?
There’s only one way left: for the Iranian people to rise up and topple this much hated, criminal, and nasty theocracy once and for all.
But they need help, they need support from US and other western democracies. They cannot do it on their own, the mullahs have their hands to their throats.
If it takes a military strike of some sort to weaken the mullahs and distract them momentarily so that they lose their throat grip on the Iranian people, that is great. That is the opportunity that the Iranian people are looking for to finally finish the Islamist-Fascist regime that they despise en masse once and for all.
We need to help them to do just that, it is our duty as the largest democracy in the free world. If we do not help them, we have been diminished too.
If the left in this country had an iota of decency and humanity left in them, instead of being driven by blind hatred for republicans and democrats who both want & will go to war with Iran, they would NOT support this criminal and medieval theocracy of mullahs in Tehran. Shame on you if you do!
Iranian citizen:
you are out of your mind. A bomb in the hand of mullahs are more dangerous than a born again Christian or a jewish fundamentlaist? You are probably one the people who has no idea what war is. Encauraging a war even short and not so intnese will result in massive death and destruction. If you want to overthrew the mullahs why don’t you go and do it. Hello, have you seen Iraq and Afghanistana in the last 8 years? probably not. What is wrong with trying a new road that has never traveld before. Have you heard of negotiation, mediaiton, conflict resolution and crises managment? probably not. I should not even be talking to you. Do some meditation man and chill out.
Meditation is for derelicts and new age hippies who are scared of a fight with evil since they don’t want their pot sessions be distrubed by conflict.
Peace man! yeah!
You can’t negotiate with evil Man, Far out, right!
Chill out yourself Baby, and go back to your opium and meaningless poems and day dreams, and let men who are men shape the world while you snozze after smoking…
I am another “Iranian Citizen” living in America but I have friends and family in my native land and a vested interested in seeking a non-violent end to the rule of theocracy in Iran. However, the comments by the other self-proclaimed “Iran Citizen” smells more of Zionist posturing that an objective view; it postulates the grand claim that most Iranians favor a military actions against their own country just to get rid of Mullahs. Well, this person may be referring to a few upper-class Tehraians but certainly that is not the case with most Iranians that I talk to. If this person is actually a native Iranians and not a guy in Tel-aviv pretending to be an Iranian, he would use a more persuasive line of reasoning.
If this “iranian America” person is actually a native Iranians and not a guy in kahoots with the regime, or a far-left loon Anglo-saxon of the Mother jones type pretending to be an Iranian, he would use a more persuasive line of reasoning.
But Obama is a politician is.nt he? So why did you lot expect anything different? The perception in the US poitics is that the Jews will not vote for you and/or will finance your campaign always gurantee that electoral candidates of all shaps, sizes and colours will have to talk tough aginst Iran and other such countries. The main question is, give the American trade and budget deficit in trillions for how long the US can afford to play sugger daddy to Israel.
Pingback: Making Excuses for Obama | New World Order Truth
I can say as a former International Atomic Energy Agency Inspector, that Iran has not violated any international obligations. Iran, in fact, legally has the right to enrich uranium as well as build nuclear power plant, per the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran also was one of the early countries to sign and ratify the IAEA ‘Additional Protocol,’ which gives a virtual carte blanche for IAEA inspectors to literally leave no stone unturned.
Where the real hypocrisy lies (no pun intended) is the U.S. double standard with respect to Israel’s openly secret nuclear arsenal. And there’s the added hypocrisy of Israel, which has not even signed a ‘full-scope’ IAEA safeguards agreement, criticizing Iran for being a nuclear outlaw. Israel strictly limits inspectors’ access at only a FEW of it’s nuclear sites, to only a FEW striclty delineated points in those sights.
Adding to the hypocrisy is America’s blatant disregard of the NPT, in that the 5 original declared nuclear weapons states are obligated to seek nuclear disarmament. Yet since the Cold War ended ca. 1991, America has not only refused to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but also continued R&D on nuclear weapons! In particular, the US nuclear labs, like Los Alamos and Sandia, have been working diligently to develop nuclear ‘bunker busters’, among other things.
And in summary, nobody in the UN or for that matter the informed world community had any respect for American ‘double-speak’ and hypocritical foreign policy, and I’m speaking of before the neo-Conned sham pretext for the mess we’ve made in Mesopotamia.
T.Pain
p.s. does anyone remember Mossadegh?
…forgot to add in my previous comment that Iran’s Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment program is actually far more technically advanced that that of the U.S.
Actually the U.S. is stuck using the inefficient and virtually obsolete 1950s technology for enrichment, called the gaseous diffusion method. And that only produces half of what the U.S. requires for it’s 103 reactors at 65 different plant sites.
The Russians supply the U.S. with the other half of our annual enriched uranium needs. Which, I surmise, is yet another reason for America’s timid reactions over the past several years to increasing Russian belligerence.
T.Pain
Unfortuately, we have agenda driven advocates who not want diplomatic discussions. In foreign policy our country has blundered on Vietnam, Iraq and the Middle East. How many major foreign policy blunders can the country sustain?
The government of the United States claims to promote democracy but it actively overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and installed a dictator. Many of our former and current elected leaders have provided the United States with failed domestic and foreign policies that are unsustainable, yet they continually utter the same misjudgments.
Self-censorship by the mainstream press and television news coupled with a general resentment of criticism appears to becoming society’s norm creating a foundation of national rot. Criticism and facts and information are the keys to solving problems.
Pingback: Rubin wants to “Forget the ‘peace process’” and Bomb Iran Already « LobeLog.com