The WaPo’s Glenn Kessler had an article today in which he deals with the topic of Dennis Ross’s objectivity and the appropriateness of having this person, of all available people, acting as Sec. Clinton’s adviser on Iran and Gulf affairs.
It is good and notable, I guess, that this topic can even be raised by a journo in the MSM. For many years, almost no-one in the MSM would have dared even mention the criticisms that have surfaced against a leading Jewish-American public figure like Ross, for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
However, Kessler considerably pulls his punches in the article.
He makes no mention of the many questions that have been raised about Ross’s competence to arrive at any judgments about decisionmaking in Iran, a very complex country of whose affairs he has never previously demonstrated any detailed knowledge.
Though Kessler does mention Ross’s role as co-author with another WINEP person of the new book “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East”, he doesn’t mention the fact that the book argued strongly against a key proposition propounded by his principals in the administration: namely that there is a strong link between Iran policy and Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
Also, in the book, Ross and Makovsky express a hard line toward Iran that can give the Iranian government ample reason to believe that a US leadership guided by Ross’s advice may only be undertaking diplomatic overtures to Tehran as a ruse, preparatory to launching a further escalation of its attacks against the Islamic Republic.
Finally, though Kessler does mention Ross’s role as a co-founder of a very hawkish US group called United Against Nuclear Iran, he mysteriously makes no mention of Ross’s just-relinquished role as founding President of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People’s Public Policy Institute (JPPPI). According to reports in the Israeli press, while Ross was still its president JPPPI was “tasked” by the Israeli government with doing some important strategic planning on its behalf.
Kessler also writes in deadpan vein, “Ross has written that his admiration for Israel has not hurt his effectiveness as a negotiator.” But he has apparently been quite unable to find a single Arab or Muslim person to corroborate that statement!
That part is pretty hilarious.
But I wish Kessler and his editors had been braver and published much more of the material that I am sure they have to hand that strengthens the judgment that this man is a quite unsuitable pick for the Iran-affairs advisory post in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Addition, 11:20 a.m.: I just read the article in the paper edition. It is still always easier for me to read texts on paper! What struck me on this read was this framing Kessler made in his fourth para of what “the issue” is around Ross:
- Ross is undertaking this assignment amid questions in Washington about whether he has sufficient clout in the nascent Obama administration. And in the Middle East, many officials view him as too pro-Israel, raising concerns about whether he is the right person for the job of coaxing the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I would say that seriously mischaracterizes the concerns here in Washington DC. Some people here doubtless have questions about whether he has enough clout in the administration– but I can tell you that many others– perhaps an even greater number!– question whether he too much clout. Worries on that score are not, as Kessler’s framing would have you believe, limited to the Middle East.
Shared concerns Helena — Ross’s approach to Iran is contradictory to Obama’s public approach to Iran — the emphasis on diplomacy plus pressure is a sure fire to insure that diplomacy never has a chance.
And isn’t it ironic that Mr. Ross, architect of one delay after another for Israel is now the one pushing for short deadlines…?
One new revelation in the article — credit is given to a public diplomacy specialist with DOS, an Erica Thibault, as the brains behind Obama’s (brilliant) NoRuz speech.
Anybody know anything about her? Is she a UVA product?
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett outline Ross’s design for negotiations with Iran in their May NYT op-ed piece, “Have We Already Lost Iran”:
“Even more disturbing is President Obama’s willingness to have Dennis Ross become the point person for Iran policy at the State Department. Mr. Ross has long been an advocate of what he describes as an “engagement with pressure” strategy toward Tehran, meaning that the United States should project a willingness to negotiate with Iran largely to elicit broader regional and international support for intensifying economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.
In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.
Iranian officials are fully aware of Mr. Ross’s views — and are increasingly suspicious that he is determined that the Obama administration make, as one senior Iranian diplomat said to us, “an offer we can’t accept,” simply to gain international support for coercive action.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html