Right Web

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

"Resist and Deter" Iran

A recent report by a hawkish U.S. think tank urges the administration to exert increasing pressure on Tehran to abandon its enrichment program and be prepared to launch military strikes.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

A new report on how the United States should "resist and deter" Iran’s alleged ambitions to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability by a think tank closely tied to the so-called Israel Lobby has been endorsed by two key officials who are expected to exercise major influence on Iran policy in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.

The 10-page report, which was released here Wednesday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argues that the United States should engage with Iran diplomatically but at the same time ratchet up pressure on many other fronts if it fails to heed demands to suspend and eventually abandon its uranium enrichment program.

Washington should be prepared to offer Tehran the following carrots: co-operation on "shared problems, such as piracy and smuggling in the Persian Gulf," and "participation in a regional security dialogue," according to the report.

At the same time, the report stressed that failure to stop Iran’s nuclear progress may well result in a decision by Israel to carry out a military attack within the next two years. Such a decision, it warned, could be hastened if Russia goes through with the sale and delivery of sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile systems which "are seen by Israel as seriously limiting its military options."

"Whatever Americans may think, Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option," the report asserts. If Tehran deploys such systems, the report adds, Washington "should promptly provide Israel with the capabilities to continue to threaten high-value Iranian targets—for instance, with more modern aircraft."

"Time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success," it asserts.

The new report, which comes amid a major administration review of U.S. policy toward Iran, is likely to be very closely read in European and Middle Eastern capitals due to its endorsement by Dennis Ross, who serves as Special Advisor on the Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Robert Einhorn, the senior State Department official on non-proliferation matters.

While both men resigned from the 17-member task force that helped draft the report to join Obama’s presidential transition team, WINEP stressed that they had formally endorsed an early draft that was not substantially different from the final product.

Other members of the task force, which was convened by WINEP’s director, Robert Satloff, and its deputy director of research, Patrick Clawson, included a number of prominent neoconservatives, such as Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and some who served in senior posts under President George W. Bush, including former under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Robert Joseph; his immediate subordinate, Stephen Rademaker; and the former chairman of the Defense Science Board, William Schneider Jr.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, a liberal Democrat who heads the House Subcommittee in the Middle East and South Asia, and Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees who has been a reliable supporter of the "Israel Lobby," also signed on to the report.

Ross’ endorsement, however, is particularly notable. While the State Department has been vague about what his precise responsibilities will be, it is understood that he is responsible for developing a diplomatic strategy for dealing with Iran, particularly how to marshal regional and international pressure on Tehran in support of Washington’s positions.

Ross is expected to coordinate with Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, and Puneet Talwar, who has the Iran portfolio on the National Security Council. Both Burns and Talwar are considered less hawkish on Iran than Ross, who was President Bill Clinton’s top Middle East negotiator and has held senior positions in WINEP. Last September, Ross signed on to another report by the Bipartisan Policy Center drafted by hardline neoconservatives (see Ali Gharib, “Pundits Debate the Inevitability of a Nuclear Iran,” Right Web, November 18, 2008).

Among other things, that report called for Washington to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and conventional military infrastructure if Tehran did not accede to demands that it abandon its nuclear program.

WINEP, which was founded some 25 years ago as a spin-off of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is one of Washington’s most influential think tanks on Middle East policy—although, like AIPAC itself, its views and perspectives rarely deviate far from those of the Israeli government or national-security establishment.

Indeed, the major message of the latest report is that Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability, the prevention of which is characterized as a "vital national priority" for the United States, would set off a "cascade of destabilizing reactions by other states," which, it argues, would seek to emulate Tehran’s achievement, thus weakening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and increasing the risks of "a nuclear confrontation, with horrible consequences."

Yet the report omits any mention of the universally accepted view—accidentally confirmed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a December 2006 interview—that Israel already has nuclear weapons which may have had destabilizing consequences of their own.

The report, which offers a number of hints on how Ross hopes to carry out his portfolio, coincided with Secretary of State Clinton’s first Middle East trip during which she reportedly expressed skepticism about the likelihood that diplomatic engagement with Iran would succeed but also invited Tehran to a conference on Afghanistan at the end of this month,

The report stresses that any offer on the nuclear issue should come from the permanent five Security Council members plus Germany—the group that has negotiated with Iran over its nuclear program to date—"not from the United States alone." "Arab countries, Turkey, and Israel" must also be involved so as to assure a unified voice.

It also emphasizes that any deal should not permit Tehran to enrich uranium on Iranian territory, arguing that such a precedent would itself contribute to proliferation. Moreover, "the international community … should not foster debate among its members about what a compromise (on enrichment) acceptable to Iran might be." The report calls for a policy of "resist and deter" rather than "acquiesce and deter."

Instead, Washington should "respond to Iranian worries about ensuring access to fuel for its civilian nuclear power plant" by following through on its "announced intention to bring to fruition the international nuclear fuel bank [and] … on the U.S. commitment to negotiate a fissile material cutoff treaty."

While it does not raise the possibility of gaining Russian support for U.S. efforts by offering to cancel Washington’s deployment of missile-defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic (a deal that was reportedly alluded to in a letter from Obama to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last month) it suggests that China could be brought along through pressure from "the Gulf states—especially Saudi Arabia" due to Beijing’s dependence on their "export markets and energy supplies."

The United States should also consider offering a "nuclear guarantee (or ‘umbrella’)" to its allies in the region as part of a deterrence strategy and should, in any case, build up their defensive capabilities if Iran persists in its nuclear program. In such a case, the report calls for a rapid build-up in economic sanctions, including efforts to discourage countries and companies from building oil refineries in Iran or exporting refined petroleum products to the country.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Citations

By Jim Lobe, '"Resist and Deter" Iran' Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2009). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4986.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

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share