Yes, Obama May Call Iran Strike
Image Credit: Nrbelex

Yes, Obama May Call Iran Strike

0 Likes
27 comments

Dennis Ross, just retired as President Barack Obama’s top adviser on the Middle East, warned yesterday that Obama means what he says when he declares that the White House isn’t ruling out military action against Tehran. Though other, senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly stressed that war against Iran could have unpredictable and dangerous results, Ross said Obama is serious about using force to prevent Iran from acquiring a military nuclear capability.

“He hasn’t been reluctant to use force when he says that all options remain on the table,” said Ross, in an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). “It means that it’s an option he is prepared to exercise.” Later, in a private discussion, Ross told The Diplomat that even though Panetta, Mullen and others in the administration seem to oppose a strike against Iran, “The president doesn’t take his own words lightly. Has he made a decision yet? No.”

Ross, before going into the administration in 2009, spent many years at the Washington Institute, a hawkish, pro-Israel think tank, and he has returned there as its counselor and resident expert on the region. While at the White House, he had a reputation as a hardliner on Iran policy, and there has been speculation in Washington that he left the White House because of differences with other U.S. officials, including Pentagon leaders who have expressed reluctance to attack Iran even if that appears to be the only way to halt Iran’s nuclear research program. But in his WINEP appearance Tuesday, Ross disputed that, saying instead that he quit after three years in order to keep a promise he’d made to his family.

Though Iran has denied that it seeks to militarize its nuclear program, and despite there being no concrete evidence that Iranian leaders have decided to seek nuclear weapons, Ross said in his view there’s no ambiguity. “The Iranians, by their behavior, have made it pretty clear that they want to have a nuclear weapons program,” he said. He emphasized that the goal of U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from building a bomb, not containing it once it has developed a military nuclear capability. “It’s not about containment, it’s about prevention,” he said.

Because neither sanctions nor diplomacy have dissuaded Iran from its nuclear program, many analysts in Washington have begun to talk about containing a nuclear Iran, much as the United States pursued a containment, balance-of-power policy toward the Soviet Union in the Cold War. And it’s been reported that officials at the White House, the State Department and the Defense Department are quietly discussing precisely that idea if Iran eventually decides to go nuclear.

But Ross laid out an apocalyptic scenario for nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East if Iran gets the bomb. Were Iran to acquire even a limited nuclear capability, it would dramatically destabilize the Middle East, he said, and that’s why a containment policy is the wrong approach. “The fact is that Israel looks at Iran as an existential threat, and it is,” he said. If both Israel and Iran have nuclear bombs, it would put the region on a hair trigger, and he asked, “Can Israel wait?” if a nuclear-armed Iran seemed to raise its level of readiness for war. “The possibility of nuclear war in the Middle East goes up dramatically.”

Ross stressed that there’s still room for the administration’s combination of sanctions and negotiation to work. “We still have time and space available to us to ratchet up the pressure,” he told WINEP. But some analysts have argued that sanctions, pressure tactics and what appears to be a campaign of covert action against Iran could provoke Iran into aggressive, rash behavior that could by itself lead to conflict. In the field of covert action, recent events include the assassination of several Iranian scientists, a computer worm that damaged Iran’s centrifuge facility, an explosion that killed the top Iranian commander in charge of its missile program, and the recent crash of a U.S. surveillance drone in eastern Iran. Ross refused to comment on whether or not the United States has a covert action program underway, but when asked about it he replied cryptically, “The full range of options needs to be pursued. All options need to be explored.”

One argument against war with Iran, and against harsh economic sanctions that would include curtailing or cutting off Iran’s oil exports, is that the loss of Iran’s oil on the world market would send prices skyrocketing. But Ross suggested that quiet talks with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – all of which have expressed alarm about Iranian ambitions in the Gulf – might lead Arab oil producers to ratchet up their output to offset Iranian exports. And, he said, Libya’s oil output is already coming back onto the market, further easing pressure on prices. Thus, he said, it might be possible to “phase in an Iran oil shutoff without a spike in prices.”

Comments
27
Esther
February 23, 2012 at 13:13

FYI wetris: But the back of Sunni insurgency in Iraq has to be broken before Saudis find it expedient to work with Iran and Syria. Can you explain that a bit?

Ateng
February 23, 2012 at 12:22

Some inetresting comments about the Israel lobby, by a Liberal Democrat peer in the UK, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, are online today at PressTV: Europe cannot think straight about Israel because of the Holocaust, and America is in the grip of the well-organized Jewish lobby.

venkat
December 19, 2011 at 22:56

it may be wise n better for america to end war in afghanistan.may not wise to have a war against iran.let all military troops takes rest for few years.it may not be good for america to have a war against any country in the next few years.military should recover.politicall he may win again if the amereica goes war with iran.but it is not good to the America.

Chris
December 19, 2011 at 09:01

The current obama admin. is actually strikingly similar with 2002 bush admim. Like obama, 2002 bush’s admin. civilian side first got rid of any doves then push Iraq war while military side actually oppose the idea.
Justification of the war was also nuclear weapon program and possibility of destabilization on the region.

Only difference would be obama push the war even with economic debacles while bush at least had OK economy. Of course, unlike bush, obama actually has the Israel card to use.

I am not denying either the Iran’s intention to develop nuke weapon or military strike is the only option to prevent Iranian nuke program.

But I am also not denying the simple fact that the U.S. just cannot afford any major military operation either against Nuclear North Korea or pursuing Iran.

To maximize the U.S. interest, I would recommend to pursue realistic options instead of doing whatever Israel demands.

C Moore
December 17, 2011 at 11:35

Israeli Professor, Dr. Israel Shahak, wrote in his book OPEN SECRETS (1997):”Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East which it has always sought covertly, without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, INCLUDING NUCLEAR ONES…by insisting on its nuclear monopoly, Israel aims at reducing all other Middle Eastern states to the status of its vassals.”

In their book, CRITICAL MASS (1994), Burrows and Windrem wrote:”Israel wired itself for nuclear war. It was a system that Israel’s enemies could not counter or match. Indeed, they could barely comprehend its complexity..Israel has achieved what strategic analysts call ‘escalation superiority’, the ability to control the pace of a conflict by being able to guarantee that its attackers will be OBLITERATED”(emphasis mine.) Hillary Clinton used that same word, “obliterate” with regards to Iran if it attacked Israel. It is ludicrous to say Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel. Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear WMDs as well as neutron bombs–AND the backing of the U.S. and Britain with THOUSANDS of nuclear WMDs, many of which are on ships off Iran. Also, all 17 of the U.S. spy agencies have concurred that Iran has no nuclear bomb. Further, Iran’s leaders have said nuclear weapons are un-Islamic; they have pressed for world-wide disarmament of all nuclear weapons-something all peace loving people in the world want. One further point–Jerusalem is the third most holy city for Moslems. Iran would NEVER “obliterate” the place where the Prophet Mohammed rose to heaven and their Prophet, Jesus, lived and preached. (Yes, they revere Jesus and all the Hebrew Prophets!)

Michael E Piston
December 17, 2011 at 10:15

Fox.

Michael E Piston
December 17, 2011 at 10:14

Since President Ahmadinejad has frequently dismissed the possibility of foreign attack, e.g., http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/25/ahmadinejad-dismisses-a-possible-israeli-threat.html, apparently what you mean is that sanctions are the option.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief