No subject

<http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=3D198>
Top 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 =97 namely, Dennis Ross =97 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 =97 and here's the main point
=97 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:

    =96 A strategy of deterrence, if Iran became a "nuclear-capable"
state, would not necessarily work because of the "Islamic Republic's
extremist ideology."

    =97 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.

    =97 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.

    =97 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.

    =97 The U.S. should maintain a constant dialogue with Israel because
"=85(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.

    =97 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=85" [!!!]

    =97 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=85"
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 =97 a position that is
certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio =97 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?


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 Foreign
Policy In Focus, Alternet, Tompaine.com, and was featured in BBC and
ABC television documentaries about motivations for the US invasion of
Iraq.