Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama Advisor Has Ties to Neocons

(Inter Press Service) With the 2008 presidential campaign at its end, pundits have begun to discuss in earnest what expected winner Barack Obama’s administration might...

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

With the 2008 presidential campaign at its end, pundits have begun to discuss in earnest what expected winner Barack Obama’s administration might look like. An important piece of evidence is Obama’s campaign team, which largely escaped the harsh scrutiny that his opponent’s lobbyist-laden team received.

Because of Obama’s relative inexperience on foreign policy, it is this part of his team that is getting much of the attention, and one advisor in particular—Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton’s Mideast envoy whose record includes supporting the pro-Iraq War advocacy campaigns of the Project for the New American Century and serving as a consultant to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a bastion of Israel-centric policy thinking in Washington.

Generally regarded as a political moderate who has the ear and respect of both Republicans and Democrats, Ross, a former Soviet specialist, reportedly has told friends and foreign officials that he hopes to nab a very senior post in an Obama administration, one that at least covers Iran policy, if not the entire Greater Middle East.

But Ross’s record as a Mideast peacemaker during the Clinton years, longtime association with hawkish political factions, and track record promoting a hard line vis-à-vis Israel’s Arab neighbors have spurred concern that he would be a less-than-ideal pick for a Middle East portfolio in an Obama administration, which many presume he will be offered.

As one Clinton official, asked about Ross’s role in the Obama campaign, told Time magazine earlier this year, "If Obama wants to embody something new that can actually succeed, it’s not just a break from [George W. Bush] Bush that he’s going to need, but a break from Clinton."

Despite some successes as Clinton’s envoy crafting agreements between Israel and its neighbors, Ross’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a failure. In his writings, Ross has emphasized Palestinian intransigence—in particular, Yasser Arafat’s—as being the cause for the failure, although he doesn’t exempt Israel from blame.

Other participants in those negotiations have pointed their finger at Ross. In their book Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Daniel Kurtzer (also an Obama advisor) and Scott Lasensky cite a number of anonymous officials who were critical of Ross.

Said one Arab negotiator, "The perception always was that Dennis [Ross] started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs.… He was never looked at … as a trusted world figure or as an honest broker."

Likewise, a former Clinton administration representative told the authors, "By the end, the Palestinians didn’t fully trust Dennis. … [T]hey thought he was tilted too much towards the Israelis."

Ross got his start in high-level policymaking working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon during the Carter administration. Wolfowitz—who is better known for his role pushing the Iraq War and for his controversial tenure as World Bank head—tasked Ross with helping draft a study assessing threats to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. The 1979 study, titled the “Limited Contingency Study,” concluded that aside from the Soviet Union, a key threat to the region’s oil fields was Iraq.

In his 2004 book the Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann writes that this study, the Pentagon’s "first extensive examination of the need for the United States to defend the Persian Gulf," would go on to "play a groundbreaking role in changing American military policy toward the Persian Gulf over the coming decades."

When Wolfowitz was tapped to head the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff after the election of Ronald Reagan, he included Ross in his team of assistants, who, according to Mann, would go on to become, over the next two decades, "the heart of a new neoconservative network within the foreign policy bureaucracy."

Other Wolfowitz team members from that time included I. Lewis Libby, a Washington lawyer who later became notorious as the disgraced former chief aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; James Roche, President George W. Bush’s Air Force secretary who resigned after being implicated in the Boeing tanker-leasing scandal; Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and post-invasion ambassador to Iraq; Alan Keyes, the frequent Republican presidential candidate; and Francis Fukuyama, the "end of history" theorist and erstwhile neoconservative ally who turned against the faction after the Iraq invasion.

Ross’s close association with neoconservatives has deepened over the years, becoming especially pronounced in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He supported the invasion of Iraq and, during the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections, repeatedly teamed up with writers from groups like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to craft hardline policies toward Iran.

Ross served as the co-convener of WINEP’s Presidential Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Israel Relations, which issued the June 2008 report, "Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge." The report was signed by a number of former Democratic and Republican policymakers, as well as by several neoconservatives, including former CIA director James Woolsey and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman who co-founded the rightist pressure group Empower America.

Interestingly, several other advisors to the Obama campaign added their names to the document—Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, and Richard Clarke.

Ross also helped produce the 2008 report, "Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development," which was published by a study group convened by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a group led by several former legislators.

The lead drafter of the report was AEI’s Michael Rubin, an outspoken proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Other participants included hawkish arms control analyst Henry Sokolski; Michael Makovsky, a former aide to Douglas Feith; Stephen Rademaker, who worked under John Bolton in the State Department; and Kenneth Weinstein, director of the neoconservative Hudson Institute.

The report argues that despite Iran’s assurances to the contrary, its nuclear program aims to develop nuclear weapons and is thus a threat to "U.S. and global security, regional stability, and the international nonproliferation regime," a conclusion that stands in contrast to the CIA’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program.

Like the WINEP study, the report argues that "Cold War deterrence" is not persuasive in the context of Iran’s program, due in large measure to the "Islamic Republic’s extremist ideology." Even a peaceful indigenous uranium enrichment program would place the entire Middle East region "under a cloud of ambiguity given uncertain Iranian capacities and intentions."

Among the report’s proposals are undertaking a major U.S. military buildup in the Gulf; pressuring Russia to halt weapons assistance to Iran; and, if the U.S. agrees to hold direct talks with Tehran without insisting that the country first cease enrichment activities, setting a predetermined compliance deadline and being prepared to apply increasingly harsh repercussions if these are not met, which would include U.S. military strikes.

Decried by some observers as a "roadmap to war," the WINEP study appears to offer the next administration little room to maneuver when dealing with Tehran. In arguing that Iran must permanently abandon its indigenous uranium program or else face a U.S. military attack, the report makes war practically inevitable—arguably not a position that most people would expect from Senator Obama or one of his advisors.

Michael Flynn is the director of PRA’s Right Web project (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).


Analysis by Michael Flynn, "Obama Advisor Has Ties to Neocons" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4963.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.