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/).

Citations

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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share