Your Daily Update: What Exactly is Dennis Ross in Charge Of?

In today's episode, we try to find Dennis' new office in the State Department, courtesy of The Cable blog at Foreign Policy and ask if he is the now the Super-Envoy for Bahrain. Or Turkmenistan. Or maybe Sylvania.

The State Department, bless them, is trying to reassure folks off-the-record that Ross --- despite the public efforts not to mention the I-word in the description of his duties --- has been really important in the review of Iran policy. He has been in discussions with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State William Burns, who has been Washington's point man in talks about and with the Iranians, and the Department's staff.

So far, so good. But then "sources" start bringing out other names. There's Puneet Talwar, the senior director on Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf for the National Security Council. Gary Samore, the NSC's nonproliferation coordinator, and Robert Einhorn, the likely Undersecretary of State for nonproliferation, are also in the mix. And maybe Vali Nasr, who is a specialist on Shiism and Iran but wound up as an advisor to Richard Holbrooke on Afghanistan and Pakistan, comes into play.

Let's not say too many cooks (or, heaven help, too many chiefs and not enough Indians), but the Ross episode --- while giving us lots of political chuckles --- indicates that President Obama's clear statement of "engagement" is in tension with a lack of coordination and clarity inside the Administration.

No great harm in that...yet. There's no real breakthrough possible until after June's Presidential election in Iran. The risk, however, is that the muddle at the State Department and beyond leaves the field open for the sniping critics who would like nothing better than fist-shaking at the "mullahs".

Exclusive: How Iran is Taking Over America

Once it was Reds under the Bed. Now it's the Mullahs Hiding behind the Curtains.

Human Events sounds the warning, exposing all the pseudo-Americans who are actually working for Tehran. Our only qualm with this article is that --- as it outed Trita Parsi, Juan Cole, and Gary Sick, all of whom we have featured on this website --- somehow it forgot to mention Enduring America amongst the threats to Mr and Mrs USA.

Why U.S. Policy Leans Too Close to Terrorist Appeasement
Clare M. Lopez

The Obama administration has lost no time extending an outstretched hand to Iran’s terrorist regime, just as promised during the election campaign. The president assured the mullahs of his pacific intentions in a January 2009 interview on al-Arabiya TV, asking nothing more than that Iran unclench its fist.

Secretary of State Clinton echoed Obama after an early February 2009 meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Absent from either of their comments was any mention of Tehran’s obligations before the world community to comply with United Nations resolutions to immediately and verifiably suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Also missing was any criticism of Iran’s massive support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizballah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- not to mention its long-standing affiliation with al-Qa’eda.

As for introduction of a U.N. resolution to condemn Iran for repeated incitement to genocide of a fellow U.N. member state -- the State of Israel -- somehow that didn’t come up either. Holding to account a regime that stones girls to death for being raped, hangs gays from construction cranes, and executes juveniles also doesn’t seem central to the new agenda. Perhaps we missed it and the United States actually signed on to the Cairo Declaration. For those who don’t remember that ignominious piece of paper, it is the 1990 opt-out by Muslim states from the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights.

An 8 February 2009 speech by Vice President Joe Biden (in Munich, of all places) did note U.S. readiness to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, but also repeated that the U.S. is open to talks. This is what your mother always warned you against: mixed signals.

Under the Bush administration we had no Iran policy. Now, our policy leans too close to appeasement. How did it get this way?

America’s foreign policy toward Iran did not reach this level of malleability overnight or by accident. A well-organized plan to infiltrate and influence U.S. policymakers at the highest levels has been operating on American soil for well over a decade. Conceived in Tehran under the direct authority of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the plan set out to create a network of top U.S. academics, diplomats, journalists, NGOs, and think tanks that would advocate a policy of appeasement towards Iran. Iran’s top strategic objective has always been to buy time for its nuclear weapons program, which now is well along in developing the three critical components: enriched uranium, warhead weaponization, and a credible missile delivery system.

Beginning in the late 1990s, a de facto alliance between Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. (such as CAIR -- the Council on Islamic American Relations) and frank Tehran regime advocates like the American-Iranian Council (AIC) openly began to promote public support for a U.S. foreign policy based on the favored positions of the Islamic Republic. In 2002, a new pro-Iran group was formed by a young Swedish-Iranian immigrant named Trita Parsi. That group, the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) quickly established itself as the nexus of a growing network of individuals and organizations that openly lobby for a U.S. policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives, and negotiations with the Tehran regime -- while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions, or threat of military action. Part and parcel of this advocacy on behalf of Tehran is a pattern of antipathy towards Israel that minimizes its security concerns and dismisses its legitimate defense needs.

Under Parsi, who is closely connected to the Tehran regime, the NIAC network has expanded to include a growing number of new groups. Some of them -- such as The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) -- are NIAC clones. CASMII was founded in December 2005 to oppose all forms of pressure on Iran. Others, such as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS, founded in February 2007) play the role of useful idiots. CNAS had Dr. Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s appointee as Ambassador to the UN, on its Board of Directors.

Dr. Vali Nasr, who has been named senior advisor to U.S. Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, was one of the authors of a September 2008 CNAS publication called Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options. Nasr’s chapter, "The Implications of Military Confrontation with Iran," urged the U.S. to take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table and instead focus on how best to accommodate Tehran’s rising power in the Middle East region. The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) launched its pro-Iran activities with a cross-country event called The Folly of Attacking Iran Tour, which crisscrossed the U.S. in February and March 2008.

The American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP) was founded in December 2008 with an “experts list” that reads like a remix of other CAIR and NIAC affiliates, including former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering, James Dobbins, and William Miller plus well-known academic figures such as Professors Gary G. Sick of Columbia University and Juan R. Cole of the University of Michigan. These groups’ interlocking Boards of Advisors, Directors, and Experts include many other nationally-known figures from public policy and international business arenas, including some big oil companies.

All are associated in one way or another with Trita Parsi and NIAC and all advocate a policy of accommodation with Iran.

The Iranian regime makes no attempt to disguise its links to this network. NIAC, for instance, was openly mentioned in the 7 December 2007 issue of the government-controlled Aftab News, where the NIAC network was called the regime’s “Iran lobby in the U.S.” In March 2007, the Fars News daily described NIAC as ‘a non-profit’ organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of AIPAC [the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, a legal lobby group] and to enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the U.S. in order to ‘penetrate U.S. politics.’

Maneuvering behind Washington, D.C. policymaking scenes to exert influence on U.S. decision makers is pretty standard for a host of legitimate interest groups, including many foreign countries. Concern is indicated, however, when the guiding influence behind such maneuvering emanates from the top levels of a regime like Iran’s that holds top spot on the Department of State’s state sponsors of terror list, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the U.S. and our ally Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held, kidnapped, killed, and tortured American civilians and military over a 30-year period. The expanding influence of this pro-Iran lobby on U.S. foreign policy attests to a determined and sophisticated operation that serves only the interests of regime implacably hostile to America’s own national security interests.

Ms. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.

Today in Mr Obama's Neighborhood: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (9 February)

Related Post: Binyam Mohamed at Guantanamo Bay - “I Know Beyond A Doubt He Was Tortured”
Related Post: Obama v. The Generals (Again) - The Closure of Guantanamo Bay

The Neighborhood Today: An Economy Day, But Clouds over Afghanistan

Evening Update (11:25 p.m.): Move Along, Nothing to See Here. Genius/General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, and Frnech Defense Minister Herve Morin discussed Afghanistan today in a meeting in Paris. Of course, Petraeus told reporters afterwards, they did not talk about the issue of troop reinforcements: "That wasn't part of the discussion today. What we were doing was discussing how we perceive the 20 countries in the central command area of responsibility."

Which is sort of the equivalent of visiting the Pope and not mentioning Catholicism.



6:55 p.m. Either the Obama Administration is playing a good cop, bad cop game from Iran, or the departing US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, is being none-too-subtle in his distance from the White House and, I suspect, his alliance with American military commanders.

As the White House talks of engagement with Iran, Crocker has told Al Arabiya Television that Tehran is still supporting Iraqi insurgents, despite US-Iran talks over the security situation: ""There is also what I would call a terrorist element from some Shia extremists and we believe that they are supported still by elements within Iran...The question is what decisions the Iranians are going to make about their future relationship with Iraq."

6:50 p.m. Reports indicate four US soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter have been killed in a suicide car bombing in Mosul in northern Iraq.

6:15 p.m. Interesting twist in the drama over the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The Cable, the blog of the journal Foreign Policy, claims that the dispute arose in part because more than $100 million in American payments did not go to the Kyrgyzstan Government but to the family of former Kyrgyz leader Askar Akayev. The US failure to renegotiate agreements to ensure its payments made it to the correct location, i.e., the Kyrgyz Treasury, prompted Kyrgyzstan to take action.

Afternoon Update (4:30 p.m.): It appears there are further manoeuvres around the closure of the US Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. A Parliamentary vote has been delayed because the Kyrgyz Government is "sending more paperwork" to the parliamentarians.

Russian sign of goodwill for the Biden speech? Kyrgyz horse-trading for more income? Your speculation is as good as mine.

11:40 a.m. The BBC has just released a poll of more than 1500 Afghans on the political, economic, and military situation. The percentage who think the country is "headed in the right direction" is falling. While there was a 2:1 margin saying Yes two years ago, opinion is now evenly divided.

Support for the Afghan Government is still high, although it is declining. Perhaps most provocatively, given the debate in Washington, is this finding: "Support for the presence of foreign troops is also strong but declining."

11:25 a.m. South Korean Lee Myung-Bak has vowed to take a "firm" stance against North Korea's suspension of all political and military agreements.

11 a.m.: Juan Cole has an interesting analysis of former President Mohammad Khatami's declared candidacy for June's Iranian presidential election. It's an optimistic assessment: "Could Khatami be Iran's Obama?"

6:30 a.m. GMT: The general talk of US engagement with Iran, buttressed by Vice President Joe Biden's speech on Saturday, prompts some frankly ludicrous speculation on Iranian politics and society. Michael Ledeen is howling at the Tehran moon: "The terror masters in Tehran believe [Iran's] satellite has an even greater significance -- another step toward the return of the Shiite messiah, or Mahdi, the long-vanished 12th Imam." Worst Sentence of the Day comes from Roger Cohen in The New York Times: "The core debate is: can Iran manage a Chinese-style reform where its Islamic hierarchy endures through change, or does opening to America equal Soviet-style implosion?"

So let's get to the important, unresolved question: did Iranian officials meet US counterparts privately in Munich this weekend? Any clues most appreciated....

There is a tantalising story in The Wall Street Journal today highlighting the link between Iran and Afghanistan. US officials have told the paper that Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke will "engage Iran as part of a broad effort to stabilize Afghanistan and combat the country's growing drug trade". The article notes that one of Holbrooke's advisors is Professor Vali Nasr, who has written extensively on Iran.

Morning Update (5:30 a.m. GMT; 12:30 a.m. Washington): US politics will be pre-occupied today with the Congressional debates over the Obama economic stimulus package, giving us a bit of space to read the developments after this weekend's Munich Security Conference.

As we updated last night, the President v. military contest over American strategy in Afghanistan is taking on the look of a centrepiece, with envoy Richard Holbrooke bigging it up as "tougher than Iraq". The latest development, however, gives more weight to the argument that the idea of a military-first surge is in trouble: the Germans have let it be known that a new political approach, rather than an increase in troops, is the best way forward, and the French Defense Minister, Herve Morin, has repeated his statement of two weeks ago that Paris will not send additional forces.

Politically, the reaction to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech needs to be watched, given his attempt to take the initiative from the Americans with the proposal of talks with "moderate Taliban". Given the implications of that suggestion, and Karzai's tenuous position with Washington, there is surprisingly little response in US and British media this morning to the speech.

Meanwhile, the talk of Genius/General David Petraeus in Munich seems to have slipped by most journalists. What coverage there is offers Petraeus' Afghanistan-surge-as-Iraq-surge rationale, a situation that "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" in a "downward spiral of security", and the close-to-useless summary, "Terrorism – the be-all and end-all of policy towards the region under President George Bush – is now seen as much as a product as a cause of Afghanistan’s instability. National reconciliation is to be pursued as the longer-term objective."

For better or worse (in my opinion, worse), the Obama Administration has welded the Afghanistan issue to Pakistan as "Afpak", so envoy Richard Holbrooke starts in Islamabad today. White House staff are telling media that the Pakistani situation is the one that "scares" Obama, but it is clearly unclear what Washington is proposing to do --- the politics inside the country, be they at national level or in the regions, seem to beyond US grasp at the momen. So is the fighting: the military approach appears to be in suspension after the two missile strikes just after Obama took office, while dozens have died this week in battles in the Swat Valley between local insurgents and the Pakistani Army.

The New York Times' overview of Holbrooke's visit is simple but concise:

On almost every front, Pakistani leaders are calling for less American involvement, or at least the appearance of it. The main reason for the swell in resentment here is the very strategy that the United States government considers its prime success against Al Qaeda: missile strikes delivered by remotely piloted aircraft against militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.