Another important sign that Obama is changing the water in the aquarium. The Israel lobby is openly derided in this piece on Foreign Policy's Cable, which, echoing the new conventional wisdom in Washington, virtually mocks Dennis Ross's lack of a meaningful portfolio under Under Secretary of State William Burns, who will have the real Iran duties (thanks to Jack Ross):
Other sources suggested the U.S. government was sensitive to Iran's
perception that Ross, a former senior fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, is a pro-Israel hawk whose writings on
U.S. policy toward Iran have suggested a high degree of continuity with
the Bush administration's approach of carrots and sticks."I
understand the Iranians have let it be known that they won't deal with
him," said one former senior U.S. official who has dealt with Persian
Gulf issues.
Fascinating couple of paragraphs from the link in Phil's post:
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."
At first Ross actually seems to be somewhat straightforward in his proposal, but then he goes on to involve Europe in his underhandedness, and the whole thing comes full circle back to essentially bribing Iran (and Europe).
Is it any wonder nobody in the world trusts the United States? And these guys know that their reports are read by other countries, so the actual plan is probably even more devious, being that they're not going to announce their true intentions to the world.
If I acted the way these guys do in my personal relations, I'd have no friends. Politics and its players are truly abhorrent.
Well,let's hope!
BTW, I just read that congress received a notice today from Blair that
Chas Freeman "would be" taking the NIS job.
Freeman is nobody's fool and nobody's friend….I expect he will be ruthlessly honest in his assesments…and with Obama, in private if not in public.
Looks can be deceiving, but it looks like Israel and the zios might be losing their status in this adm's government.
It will be interesting to watch the Israeli fanatics in our congress and see if they continue their "in our faces, over the top" support for Israel and it's war crimes.
Iran is acting completely within its rights in developing nuclear technology, and the demands being made of it are completely illegal.
Don't you just love the language they use? Iran's perception that Ross, a former senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is a pro-Israel hawk… PERCEPTION?!
You know, this reminds me of a certain supposedly highly experienced and brilliant "help desk supervisor" I once knew who was baffled by the reaction she got from a high-powered, and exceptionally twitchy partner in the law firm she worked for. It seems when he reported to her that he was unable to work on some very urgent documents because his computer would not boot up at all, she responded by saying to him "I understand you feel you cannot do your work because your computer will not boot up". She thought she had done very well in acknowledging and validating his "perception" of the situation, and could not understand why he was not more appreciative of her excellent use of the "active listening" technique – or whatever – that she had learned at her latest help desk seminar. Ummmmm – no madam, I do not FEEL I cannot do my work. I CANNOT DO MY WORK. Now, please find someone who will stop bullshitting and fix my computer.
I like Ross' style: His proposal would mean greater sanctions for Iran, reducing opportunities for European companies to make business with important Middle Eastern country, all this at the time of financial downturn.
Meanwhile, Iran is fast developing links with Asia and with China especially, and with Russia, all those countries taking advantage of the ready markets.
Iran knows USA wants to talk. Who benefits from increased sanctions?
Shirin's statements are about the same that were issued by Saddam defending the "Rape of Kuwait" Completely legal as I recall.
Saddam
Hitler
Islamofascism
Jihadists
Islamists
Nazis
Holocaust
Antisemites
Right to defend itself
blah blah
I think we're 1/8 on Berel's favorite trite, irrational rhetorical/ideological devices.
Shirin's little story was right on the money.
In seems people think Ross is some kind of foolish nebbish who is going to accept a menial job with no authority and responsibility to help Obama with the Israeli lobby. Why he demean himself when he can keep working at some cushy job at a think tank and make tons of money get to give his opinions and receive honors for doing it?
The reality is Ross knew from the very beginning what his job would entail and what authority he will have. There's no hondling going on.
Ross' "lowly portfolio" is put out there to placate the Phils of the world.
S0metimes appearing to have a low profile allows you to steer great events.
I can't believe the insinuation here that the EU and Saudi Arabia are under ZOA hypnosis regarding the Iranian threat. FUNNY!
Thats sounds antisemetic Chris.
Ross is Jewish. Are you implying that he, as a Jew, will keep a low profile from behind the scenes as it were, and 'steer' history? Or as you put it, 'great events'?
I'm offended.
Damned if I can find anything on Google News about Charles Freeman's appointment to the NIC – what little there is is based on a single blog item at politico.com.
But anyway, what does it – or could it – all mean? Someone over at Washington Note observed that appointing an old "Saudi hand" to the job is not necessarily a favor to the Palestinians or a setback for Israel because the Saudis are more or less aligned with Israel against Hamas and Hezbullah, which Iran supports. The risk is Freeman just means more US support to the Arab states against Iran, and who knows where that will end, with Dennis Ross also pulling strings. I looked for some connection between Charles Freeman and Iran and turns out he was a director of the "American Iranian Council", which is "devoted to improving understanding between the peoples of Iran and the United States" – hey, nice – "and promoting the overall development of Iran" (hmm…). Anyway, the council – the usual mix of exotic names (Sargent Shriver), plus Halliburton and Boeing – has a president who has some interesting stuff to say about Iran, the US and Israel here:
link to payvand.com
/>
aa-aaah. From the Jewish Telegraph:
The head of the National Jewish Democratic says Freeman is "not a pick I would make" but that his reported appointment must be looked at in the "totality" of all of President Obama's other selections for national security posts.
link to blogs.jta.org
/>
Egads, was Kuwait raped? Has no one called the police? The attribution of personal characteristics to countries debases any conversation about international politics. As DanK illustrates, familial and social relationships are founded upon a different set of principles. So, for example, when people refer to Israel as 'America's only friend in the Middle East', this trope is intended to stifle debate, because friends don't insult other friends publicly.
Countries don't have 'friends', only adversaries of differing degrees. Grow up.
"But anyway, what does it – or could it – all mean? Someone over at Washington Note observed that appointing an old "Saudi hand" to the job is not necessarily a favor to the Palestinians or a setback for Israel because the Saudis are more or less aligned with Israel against Hamas and Hezbullah, which Iran supports. The risk is Freeman just means more US support to the Arab states against Iran, and who knows where that will end, with Dennis Ross also pulling strings."
Very interesting insights. I admittedly was concerned about Freeman because I was reading about his appointment through the lens of the anti-Israel bias here. But this is a valid point. It all arguably amounts to maintaining the status quo with well-established ME partners.
Particularly offensive impersonation of Jim Haygood at February 27th 9.43.
Egads, was Kuwait raped? Has no one called the police? Posted by: marc b. | February 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Yes. The United States was called. They set up a coalition. They then kicked the shit out of Iraq and threw them out of Kuwait.
Why do you ask? No education?