One of the talking points of the Israel lobby is that the Arab states care more about a nuclear Iran than they do the Israel/Palestine conflict. Roger Cohen puts the lie to that in a NYT piece on Obama aide Dennis Ross, the longtime peace processor, and Iran. Funny anecdote:
On April 29, in Dammam, in Saudi Arabia’s eastern province, Ross sat down with King Abdullah. He talked to a skeptical monarch about the Obama administration’s engagement policy with Iran — and talked and talked and talked. When the king finally got to speak, according to one U.S. official fully briefed on the exchange, he began by telling Ross: “I am a man of action. Unlike you, I prefer not to talk a lot.” Then he posed several pointed questions about U.S. policy toward Iran: What is your goal? What will you do if this does not work? What will you do if the Chinese and the Russians are not with you? How will you deal with Iran’s nuclear program if there is not a united response? Ross, a little flustered, tried to explain that policy was still being fleshed out.
The exchange was a useful reminder that the Obama administration is going to have to work very hard, even with its allies, to present a united front to Iran. Saudi Arabia may be full of millennial Arab suspicion of the Persians, and Ross may have all sorts of ideas about how the Saudis could use their petropower to undermine the Iranians (including by selling more oil to China), but the fact is the Saudis have had normal relations with Iran since 1991 and will always be more comfortable making life difficult for a Jewish state than for a fellow Muslim nation.
Tony Karon has a great take on this piece.
I think the article served to paint Ross not as a “strategic genius”, per Karon’s dismissal, but as an independant, definitely hearing Israeli perspective first, but not necessarily adopting it.
The accusations here and elsewhere, are that Ross is a puppet of Israel, which Cohen assertively disagrees with.
My read on the article was much more about the difficulties in dealing with Iran in their current state of internal tension, while continuing to proceed on its nuclear program (in a manner that can be easily shifted to military emphasis).
I think there is a tragedy in the making frankly. That, Iran will not sort out its own legitimacy issues prior to a drop-dead date on any nuclear compromise. That it won’t have the political will to clarify its policies, nor change them, and will simply lemming off a cliff.
I don’t know what Saudi Arabia will do.
Cohen did state that the Iran confusion has entirely over-shadowed the importance of Israel/Palestine reconciliation.
Their momentum is unconditional currently. He describes Iran as very vulnerable in all of the world, confronted with an American president that offers a potential relationship of respect, which Iran does not even tangibly consider.
I agree with the first part of your message, concerning Ross, it’s a complex picture, but the more I proceed the less I seem to agree. If I understand you correctly, that is.
I found it a very, very good article again, yes somehow along your balanced standards. When during the last years have we heard other Iranian voices apart from news about Ahmadinejad? And the monolithic Iranian danger?
What I find most interesting of all is his long summary, it feels, and yes, concerning this and Phil’s quote above, it he somehow provides a mirror image for the latest government propaganda out of Israel. …Already submarines with nuclear weapons off the shores of Iran, never mind that this is no international terrain, I learned. I hope they keep at least contact with the US marine, so the “husband” knows the whereabouts of his “wife”.
The larger scenario surely doesn’t look good for the US. Be afraid, be very much afraid. I wonder if the US empire will survive more and more COIN troops for the Afghan/Pakistan theater plus an additional war with Iran. Which is expensive and takes a long, long time, Pat Lang let’s us know again and again. I read Cohen’s last paragraphs as deep fears … Basically a WWIII/IV scenario which may well bring the US giant down. Don’t forget the US economical problems, it’s huge deficits.
I share your concern; I see that WWIII/IV scenario, which, coupled with my country’s
horrible economic problems and equally horrible shallow and exasperating “fixes,” will bring the US giant down. In the Fall the taller trees will start falling, and nobody
with influence will hear them. This is also not good for Europe. China will be the beneficiary more than any.
I disagree on two points:
1. I disagree that Obama has “offered a potential relationship of respect.” Cohen wrote:
A gambit is a trick, a feint; a seeming sacrifice in order to put the opponent in a disadvantageous position. Michelle Flourney’s policy brief to candidate Obama laid crafted the blueprint for this “new” Iran strategy (not Dennis Ross, as Cohen would have us believe). link to cnas.org
After reading Flournoy’s papers, before Obama’s election, I concluded that the Iran policy was dishonest and Obama’s rhetoric a whitewash.
2. From among 300 million citizens, isn’t there anyone the Obama administration can tap to represent honest and genuine American interests and values more authentically than Dennis Ross, who has almost as much blood on his hands as Henry Kissinger?
Yes, somehow, but diplomacy is always such a game. It’s obvious that the US can’t give up its own advantage completely. Obama wouldn’t have that much space to move. Considering the larger scenario, he surely moved a lot. And don’t forget that some Iranian voices according to him seem to acknowledge
What I appreciated quite a bit is that Cohen shows the US reality Obama has to deal with, apart from the deep financial crisis that seems back on the track to business as usual, but the many continuities he has to deal with apart from special interests.
I surely hope he rises to the occasion.
seem to acknowledge this.
gambit
NOUN:
1. An opening in chess in which a minor piece, or pieces, usually a pawn, is offered in exchange for a favorable position.
2. A maneuver, stratagem, or ploy, especially one used at an initial stage.
3. A remark intended to open a conversation.
ETYMOLOGY:
Ultimately from Spanish gambito, from Italian gambetto, act of tripping someone up in wrestling, from gamba, leg, from Old Italian ; see gambol
Usage Note:
Critics familiar with the nature of chess gambits have sometimes maintained that the word should not be used in an extended sense except to refer to maneuvers that involve a tactical sacrifice or loss for some advantage. But gambit is well established in the general sense of “maneuver” and in the related sense of “a remark intended to open a conversation,” which usually carries no implication of sacrifice.
The chief Saudi prince said a day or so ago that Israel needs to work with the 2002 united Arab resolution, which offered full recognition of Israel by all Arab regimes in return for
uprooting back to Israel’s 1967 borders, the rest subject to negotiation. Israel has declined, preferring to yak without agreeing to any overall end result.
Seems pretty clear Israel has all along felt kicking the peace can down the road endlessly is the best way to obtain Greater Israel, it’s single goal.
If saudi was any friend of the Palestinians they would embargo the usa oil supply and for all the countries that support the genocide or ethnic cleansing …murder!
I onder why they haven’t played that card.
Because the ruling family doesn’t care about the Palestinians, or even their own people, for that matter. They only care about staying in power.
That might be truw Javs, but the Saudi’s rely on the US to maintain their position of power. Plus, most of the Saudi money is in the US, so they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
The Arab regimes, especially like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, cannot come out in favor of
giving Israel something for nothing as a starter–Obama doesn’t see this, or his Jewish consultants do not and he is hemmed in by them (AIPAC). The Arab man on Arab Main Street asks, ” How can you chew meat without any teeth?”
It’s really ironic, in the tyrannical Arab regimes they most ultimately kowtow to the
Arab Street just to stay in power, while in the most free USA democracy, the regime
can ignore American Main Street and still stay in power; in fact it matters not since
in the context of US foreign power in the Middle East both alternately ruling political parties act as one.