By Paul J. Balles

12 May 2009

Paul J. Balles considers the contradictions in the USA's Iranian policy which, on the one hand, ostensibly seeks to extend a hand of friendship to Tehran while, on the other, endavours to mobilize support on behalf of Israel to isolate and eventually attack Iran.

Dennis Ross "worked the shuls" (Jewish community) in Florida to help Obama get elected by the Jewish vote. The payoff Ross hoped for was appointment as Secretary of State. In the mid-1980s Ross co-founded with Martin Indyk the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Ross said to Haaretz: "Preventing Iran from going nuclear is a very high priority, not only because it's such a threat to Israel, but because it's such a threat to the United States."

The Associated Press reports, "The State Department is sending its special envoy for the Persian Gulf to the region to discuss international diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected quest for nuclear weapons."

The State Department, therefore, ignores the findings of the Intelligence organizations as well as those of Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). How do they expect to engender a favourable reaction from Iran by starting with a wrong premise?

If Iran has repeatedly said its only interest in nuclear power is for peaceful purposes, what kind of engagement would you expect if you begin by suggesting that it’s lying?

Why did Ross visit the Middle East last week? To convince Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Oman, Egypt and Qatar that they should give strong support to sanctions against Iran. That's hardly a convincing way to follow up on a spoken promise to be open to negotiations.

Hillary Clinton, testifying before the Senate, said: "We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on, we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be."

Does the administration believe that the Iranians are stupid? The days when it was possible to say one thing to the Senate and something else to the rest of the world have long gone.
 
The Nation commented: "It's paradoxical that Obama, who made opening a dialogue with Iran into a crucial plank in his campaign, would hand the Iran file to Ross."

Iran's state radio described Ross's appointment as "an apparent contradiction" with Obama's "announced policy to bring change in United States foreign policy".

Of greater concern is the Nation's report that "a former White House official says that Ross has told colleagues that he believes the United States will ultimately have no choice but to attack Iran in response to its nuclear programme".

Israel wants Iran decimated, regardless of whether they or the US does it. Israel has a no-holds-barred approach to relationships: Look at what they did to Lebanon and to Gaza. Don't forget the subterfuge they exerted on the USA to get America to attack and invade Iraq.

Iran will never believe that Dennis Ross is an even-handed envoy. After all, he trained under the tutelage of arch Zionist war mongering neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz.

According to Daniel Kurtzer, ex-ambassador to Israel and Egypt: "The perception always was that Dennis started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs."

Robert Dreyfuss writes in the Nation: "From 2001 until his appointment in February, Ross was at WINEP, where he helped to oversee a series of reports designed to ring alarm bells about Iran's nuclear research and to support closer US-Israeli ties in response."

The leaders of the Arab states visited by Ross need to insist that the US take a balanced approach to the regional concerns by (1) telling Israel to cap its warmongering, and (2) foregoing military options by either Israel or the US and get serious about meaningful negotiations with Iran.