The experienced former U.S. officials Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett had an important op-ed in Politico yesterday titled The Slippery Slope to Strikes on Iran. In it they warned that “there is a serious risk that President Barack Obama may eventually be maneuvered into ordering military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.”
The Leveretts note the key role that high-ranking National Security Council officials Tom Donilon and Dennis Ross have been playing in pushing the administration towards a more and more confrontational stance against Iran. They note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been trying, with apparently mixed success, to push back against that pressure:
- Gates believes the United States does not need to go to war over Iran’s nuclear program. He is strongly supported by the senior uniformed military leadership, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.
Dennis Ross, let us remember, joined the administration after a stint as the founding President of the Jerusalem-based Jewish People Public Policy Institute. Prior to that he was the many-times-failing “czar” of Arab-Israeli peacemaking on behalf of the Clinton administration.
In the Politico piece the Leveretts write this about the strategy that has apparently been pursued inside the Obama administration by Ross, ever since he joined it:
- Ross told us before he returned to government service in the Obama administration, [that] President George W. Bush’s successor would probably need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
Pursuing diplomatic initiatives early in Obama’s tenure, Ross said, would be necessary to justify potential military action to domestic and international constituencies.
I believe Ross also wrote that, quite clearly, in the book “Myths, Illusions, and Peace”, published last July, that he co-authored with David Makovsky.
Of course, Dennis Ross and Tom Donilon are far from the only influential members of the US policy elite who have been pushing for a U.S. military attack against Iran for some time now.
Indeed, we can see all those same actors now using exactly the same kinds of tactics that were used to “seduce” the U.S. public into supporting the aggression against Iraq, back in 2003, now being rolled out once again to “prepare” us for another act of military aggression, this time against Iran.
We U.S. citizens who want to halt this “slippery slope” slide into a new war need to start taking some much more focused action to prevent it.
In the Leveretts’ schema, “containment”, as advocated by Gates and Co., is presented as the path that is significantly less escalatory and risky than “crippling sanctions” and other moves toward escalation and a possible military action, such as are advocated by a growing chorus of political figures (ably orchestrated by AIPAC.)
But containment can also be seen as an approach embodying many very unhelpful– and also potentially escalatory– elements of coercive diplomacy. Especially if it is pursued hand-in-hand with actions intended to build up a “deterrent threat” to back it up.
Those deterrent threats were on full display in the Obama administration’s latest Nuclear Posture Review (PDF), which by clear inference exempted Iran (and South Korea) from the stated guarantee that U.S. nuclear weapons would not be used against non-nuclear-weapons states. (See the President’s own explanation of this policy, here.)
“Containment” can thus be seen as a pivot policy: It could be a gateway drug on the way towards either escalation or de-escalation. And thus far– as the Leveretts continually point out– Obama has done very little indeed to test what he might obtain in terms of furthering our country’s true interests by pursuing a determined policy of de-escalation toward Iran, through a smart and serious form of real diplomatic engagement with it.
Of course, the fact that he has Dennis Ross almost at his elbow there in the White House, now exerting reportedly ever-greater influence over both our country’s Iran policy and its Palestine policy, probably has a lot to do with Obama’s failure to fully test out the potential of diplomatic engagement with Iran.
But honestly, why should he trust Dennis Ross’s judgment on anything out there in the real world (as opposed to in the fevered imagination of longtime Israel-firsters)? Ross was a notable failure, in American terms (if not Israel’s), during his first long stint in Mideast diplomacy. And he’s shown no signs of having understood the world any better, since then.
Secretary Gates, by contrast, is someone who– along with Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mullen– bears direct line responsibility for the welfare of U.S. troops all around the world, including the hundreds of thousands of troops now deployed close to Iran, and in situations where they are deeply dependent on the goodwill of well-rooted Muslim countries.
Why on earth would the president even listen to Dennis Ross, rather than to the advice of those two extremely serious leaders over there in the Pentagon? Some friends suggest that this is due to considerations of domestic policy. I certainly hope not– though I fear this may be the case.
That just means that those of us– surely a strong majority– who do not want our country to get jerked by cynical Lobbyists into yet another war in which our service-members die needless deaths far from home while the military contractors get another big chance to raid our treasury, need to make our voices heard now. If there is a “domestic calculus” that Obama is in some way playing to in this matter, then evidently we need to change it.
Contact your members of Congress and tell them “No war or escalation against Iran! Get back to the diplomacy now!”
“Ross was a notable failure, in American terms (if not Israel’s), during his first long stint in Mideast diplomacy. And he’s shown no signs of having understood the world any better, since then.”
Ross understands the world quite well. He advanced Israel’s interests, which was his intention. American interests were different. He did not advance them, but that was not his purpose.
It is dangerous to suggest that he is lacking in knowledge of the world. It is precisely that which makes him dangerous to the interests of the United States. It is dangerous in the same way as a rich man’s heir giving him a weapon knowing he is suicidal.
Ross would kill the US interest if that advanced the Isreali interest. It is now coming to that.
As Helena points out, Dennis Ross’s only achievement is conspicuous failure. Is there anything in his background that justifies his senior position? I seriously doubt it. What then is is hold over the different presidents that enables him to maintain a high profile position? This is one of the great mysteries of middle east diplomacy. Perhaps someone can shed light on this mystery.
One of the more interesting aspects of this madness-and a major change since the Iraq invasion- is that there is no enthusiasm for this policy in Europe. And there certainly isn’t anywhere else.
With the exception of Berlusconi all the 2003 leaders are gone and even the relatively right wing newcomers such as Merkel and Sarkozy would be enormously embarassed by being involved in a war.
As to the Middle East, even the US clients are beginning to shy away: vide the comfortable relations that Hariri has with Syria and Hezbollah’s new found respectability. Turkey is completely changed, though the Georgians, it has to be confessed, are likely to be gung ho for cheerleading duties. And Vaclav Havel too. no doubt.
The sun is going down in the Empire and there is no longer an automatic assumption that the United States is going to win and that therefore the wise choice is to go along with her.
That Dennis Ross and many others, the great majority of the punditocracy and political establishment, are pushing for an attack on Iran seems clear. It is rational only in the sense that the US is so powerful militarily that starting wars, in which the lives of millions are at risk, in order to gain some minimal political advantage in domestic elections, is unlikely to lead to any immediate costs, politically.
But it is suicidal, unless a return to isolation is desired.
Maybe someone should ask Wall St about that.
I don’t like the title.
‘Pro-Israel’ is a bit mis-leading. People that like war don’t care about any country. Any humans. They just want conflict.
Why do you think Dennis Ross lied about Syria-Israel peace talks?
Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are at stake?
Who would buy advanced fighters if Israel and Syria had peace?
Helena, do you want Iran to stop its nuclear weapon program? If so, how do you think this might be achieved?
Helena,
Maybe some time you could expand more fully on this statement; “Obama’s failure to fully test out the potential of diplomatic engagement with Iran”.
What actions do you think Obama should take?
I do share the same vision with Mr Mark Thomason about the middle east expert Mr.Dennis Ross:” Ross would kill the US interest if that advanced the Isreali interest”. We all know that he is as a man of establishment who works for cynical Lobbyists. He would put US national interest in A great danger and I think a new wing of Biden team for tough diplomacy is in the making and the region would, most likely, know the age of tension and escalation.
Hafid
So, Joe (still) in Australia, do tell us more about this ”Iranian nuclear weapons programme”. Citations, please. The CIA awaits with bated breath.
Also, if this alleged nuclear weapons programme does indeed exist why does it concern you so? Does it threaten you in Australia? Does it threaten Dennis Ross in Washington DC? Are there unacknowledged agendas at work perchance? Again, do tell. Why all the coyness?
Helena,
Let all discussed this real question on one condition without war:
how do you think to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program might be achieved?
How does a seemingly intelligent and well-informed alternapundit manage to get halfway across the street, without being able to get to the other side? If you can see that Dennis Ross is a piece of work, how can you not see that Robert Gates is a piece of work? The difference, to the extent there is one, is that Ross is more consistent in his ideological bias, whereas Gates appears to be willing to play any role asked of him. It’s patently obvious that they are experienced players of Political Kabuki, and that’s all that’s going on now.
Barack Obama likes to make a show of blatantly bogus Deep and Earnest Considerations and Internal Debate amongst Deeply Serious and Highly Expert People. It’s just a difference of style between him and Bush. Bush liked to present the image of a closed circle on policy. The only time he affected ‘internal debate’ was when he wanted to position his Iraq ‘Surge’ as a deeply considered policy. Obama, on the other hand, always likes to make a show of Deep and Responsible Deliberations.
It’s his thing.
Of course he is hellbent on attacking Iran. Ignore the Kabuki.
Dreyfuss on the hysteria (bipartisan no less) presently taking hold in Congress re. Iran.
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/robert_dreyfuss
Gone are the slogans from last summer to “help these people” or to “get on the side of history”…
Now it’s, well, how do we best “obliterate these people.”
Great way to get yourself airtime on Faux news.
Where’s Chuck Hagel when we need him?