- 22 January 2009
-
- 1 Comments
-
-
-
- Diplomacy, Nuclear file, Persian Gulf
A Critical Decision in the Midst of the New Administration
22 January 2009 Posted By Sahar Jooshani
Obama has taken office. His first day was filled with phone calls to the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the president of the Palestinian Authority. It is evident that Obama is making an early effort to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, an effort that was lacking in the administration of George. W. Bush.
Yet, we have seen little confirmation as to who will take on the difficult role of dealing with Iran. The three rumored front-men for the job are Dennis Ross, George Mitchell, and Richard Haas. Though these three men come from politically impressive backgrounds, their areas of expertise are distinctively different.
This morning, Obama announced Mitchell’s appointment as Mideast envoy. Though this move was well-received, it surprised many. Mitchell is an expert on the Palestinain-Israeli conflict. When discussing Mitchell, Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel stated “He’s neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian.” “He’s, in a sense, neutral.”
Though this is good for the Palestinian-Israeli issue, this leaves little answered on the Iran issue.
Dennis Ross, who has still not been officially appointed for anything yet — and his visibility has been low (well except for this disturbing “let’s bomb Iran now and get it over with” report), has undeniably controversial opinions towards Iran. Dennis Ross’ appointment as envoy to Iran is not something to be taken lightly. Based on his comments on Iran, his approach to solving the nuclear issue could prove troublesome for present and future relations between the two countries.
Ross has repeatedly taken to bullying tactics. In November of 2008 he stated, “Iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons because the Bush administration hasn’t applied enough pressure.” “Its oil and natural-gas industries-the government’s key source of revenue, which it uses to buy off its population-desperately require new investment and technology. Smart sanctions would force Iran’s leaders to see the high costs of not changing their behavior.”
What Obama needs is a non-partisan non-biased party, an individual who isn’t scared. In his inaugural address he stated, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” Mitchell is capable of approaching this conflict with a mutual respect, but Ross’ previous statements about Iran shows that he is not.
Iran is a critical state. The success of U.S. foreign policy depends on the willingness of the new administration to engage Iran. Arab and Iranian leaders alike seem to be hopeful with President Barack Obama. It is essential to keep this hope alive by appointing an envoy that would offer a knowledgeable non-biased approach to the growing issues in the region.
One Response to “A Critical Decision in the Midst of the New Administration”
I definitely believe the search for an appropriate, impartial envoy is critical to Obama’s diplomatic game plan with Iran. The EU and the rest of P-5 partners have been desperately waiting for the US to take a lead role in negotiations, but the crises in the Mideast increasingly involve Iran as an actor (Israel-Palestine conflict, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon) and it will be necessary to find someone who has the heavyweight status to approach all the issues that affect the US and Iran besides the nuclear program.
The evolving situation on the ground in the Mideast might delay that outreach, and the President may be forced into the chronic ‘deal-with-the-crises-as-they-come’ tactical approach, especially in light of the deepening global economic crisis.
Obama’s position is not that different from that of Ronald Reagan in 1981. With the hostage crisis still occurring and the growing war in Afghanistan, Reagan still had to focus on the economy as the US faced a crippling recession that pushed back Reagan’s own rhetoric on the campaign trail about fighting the Soviets and dealing with the Iranians. If not for the release of the hostages, Reagan would have had even greater difficulty in addressing the economic situation and the standoff with the Kremlin.
I refer everyone to a NY Times article about Reagan comparisons instead of LBJ, JFK or FDR that appeared this week (http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/obamas-reagan-transformation/?ref=opinion)
Unfortunately, the decision-making will be deliberate and long, and the process still relies on what happens on the ground which is continually shifting from promise to further frustration (presidential election in Iran, G-8 Summit and even the NATO summit).
The President needs someone with the energy, independence, and forward thinking vision that anticipates conflicts and provides the President with solutions while also pushing the Administration to exercise the patience and tenacity needed to fill unheeded, long term strategic goals.
That’s why for these reasons that an experienced, nose-to-the-grindstone negotiator and diplomat who has worked the long hours in preparing the ground for engagement is needed: A policy ‘heavyweight’ instead of a celebrity pick like Tony Blair or Richard Holbrooke.
I think the President should consider an experienced diplomat like Amb. James Dobbins or Amb. Peter Galbraith as US envoy to Iran because the US cannot afford more bloviating, Manichean neoconservative/neoliberal interventionist thinking on Iran that doesn’t consider Iran’s strategic role as an energy supplier and influence peddler. In addition, the US’s needs to re-balance the region away from military clientelism, armed conflict and ignorance of the region’s changing demographic trends unfortunately, if Mr. Ross were selected, would be left wanting.