As of this minute, I’m not aware of any official announcement that pro-Israel extremist Dennis Ross has been appointed by the Obama Administration to any post whatsoever.
Netanyahu and Dennis Ross: why doesn't Bibi give him a job?
Yet the casual reader might think the exact opposite. For weeks now, elements in the Zionist mass media have been pushing Dennis Ross with articles that make it sound he’s a shoe-in for a top job under Obama. Israeli political leaders seem to be counting on it.
It’s called ‘creating momentum’, I think. But does it work? Not when it came to foisting Ross on Obama as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Although Dennis Ross was widely mentioned as the likely appointment, to the relief of millions George Mitchell got the job.
Now there’s a rather blatant attempt to bump Ross into the role of ‘Special Envoy to Iran’.
There could be no surer way of signalling to the Iranians that the USA intends to continue to pursue deeply misguided, provocative and utterly one-sided policies towards this populous and essentially peaceful nation than by appointing Mr Ross to that post.
It would be a shame if Obama can’t withstand the pressure. Yet the Israel Lobby is clearly pushing him hard – making the appointmesnt of Ross a cause celebre.
Dr Strangelove's last ride: the madman played by Peter Sellers who loved the bomb
So here’s a helpful suggestion.
If Ross is given any kind of official role relating to Iran, his job description must specify he’s strapped to the first American or Israeli missile pointed at Iran, in the manner of Dr Strangelove.
I would hate any innocent Iranians to suffer, but perhaps this is the only way to get rid of him for good?
________________________
POSTSCRIPT
The following extract is from an article by Dennis Ross that appeared in Newsweek in late November 2008, entitled: Iran: Talk Tough With Tehran.
It could be regarded as Dennis Ross’ formal job application to the Obama Administration, accompanying his well-known cv.
See how many falsehoods and non sequitors you can spot. I tried to get most of them:
Everywhere you look in the Middle East today, Iran is threatening U.S. interests and the political order. (FALSEHOOD) One Arab ambassador told me recently that the Iranians are reminding Arab leaders that America didn’t help Fuad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, or Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, when they got into trouble—that in fact Washington left them high and dry. Iran, by contrast, is close by and not going anywhere. (TRUE) If the Iranians are throwing their weight around now (FALSEHOOD), imagine what will happen if they go nuclear. (HUH?)
It’s not too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. (FALSE ASSUMPTION) Tehran clearly wants nukes for both defensive and offensive purposes. (NON SEQUITOR)
But it’s not clear the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would sacrifice anything to get nuclear weapons. (???) In fact, history shows that his government responds to outside pressure, (LIVING ORGANISMS DO RESPOND TO EXTERNAL PRESSURE – SO WHAT?) restricting its actions when it feels threatened (MOST PEOPLE DO TREAT LUNATICS WITH CAUTION!) and taking advantage when it judges it can. (UNLIKE ISRAEL?!!!_)
UPDATE: Will Obama Stack His Middle East Team with Neoconservative Ideologues? by John Tirman was published in AlterNet on January 27th 2009.
It’s all worth reading. Here’s an extract:
Particularly upsetting to growing numbers of policy analysts, former diplomats and liberal activists are the widespread rumors of who would take on the ultrasensitive posts managing affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and South Asia.
According to these reports, Dennis Ross would become a special envoy whose portfolio includes Iran, and possibly the entire region; Richard Holbrooke would take the special envoy slot for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; and Richard Haass would take on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Just after the inauguration, Holbrooke was announced for his rumored slot, and former Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, was given the job of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio. By the end of the inauguration week, there was no official word on Ross. Holbrooke, Ross and Mitchell have been affiliated with groups that are overtly hostile to Iran, and it is that record of belligerence that has many who hope for a change of course wary.
Since 2001, Ross, the tirelessly unsuccessful Mideast negotiator under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, has been employed by the Israeli-backed Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the policy arm of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby in the United States. (WINEP was founded by Martin Indyk, another Clinton-era diplomat who may play a role in the Obama government.) Holbrooke, former U.N. envoy under Clinton, headed an ad hoc group called United Against a Nuclear Iran, which advocates military action against Iran if U.S.-defined terms are not met; Ross belongs to that group, and to a so-called Bipartisan Policy Center, which similarly advocates an extremely militant stance toward Iran. (Mitchell is one of four co-chairs of the latter group.) All of these organizations are populated by neocons and reflect what could charitably be called a “Cheney-plus” strategic vision.
(Now, as it happens, the rumors about Ross in particular may not come to pass. It seems that the main source of this rumor was WINEP itself, publicizing a “memo” to its board extolling Ross’ pending appointment as an über envoy. This, picked up by uncritical bloggers and repeated in the mainstream press, has now become the conventional wisdom. But reliable sources high in the transition apparatus insisted just before the inauguration that Ross had not been chosen as a special envoy. The ploy, if that’s what it is, recalls the “we make the reality” bravura of Bush/Cheney operatives.)
