Treading Softly on Iran: Dennis Ross Sneaks into the Administration

Al Jazeera English reports the US State Department announcement that "Dennis Ross, a foreign policy veteran, has been appointed special adviser to Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, on the Gulf region", which includes Iran, the "broader Middle East", and southwest Asia. The appointment ends a saga running for weeks: it was widely expected that Ross would be appointed as an envoy, probably on the specific case of Iran, at the same time as Richard Holbrooke (Afghanistan/Pakistan) and George Mitchell (Middle East).

Yesterday, however, there wasn't much of a fuss. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were not on hand, as they were for Holbrooke and Clinton; instead, State Department Robert Gibbs made a perfunctory statement. So this morning, there is no headline coverage, and it is a Middle Eastern network, rather than an American media outlet, that has to bring us the news.

The reason? A no-brainer, really. If the Obama Administration wanted meaningful engagement with Iran, Ross couldn't be appointed as the point man, given his involvement with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which has advocated co-ordination with Israel on diplomatic, economic, and then possibly military steps to deal with Tehran. So as the President's Inaugural challenge to shake the unclenched fist was met by some signals from Iran, Ross was put into storage.

He has been brought out now, but with a remit so broad that it threatens to be vague. Now he is not focused on Iran but overlapping with both Holbrooke and Mitchell. There may be some State Department master-plan setting out how Ross, a forceful personality, will work with those two envoys, equally forceful personality, and how he and his staff will in turn work with permanent State Department desks overseeing the Middle Eastern, Persian Gulf, and Southwest Asian regions.

Somehow I doubt it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided he stands in the corner as the processes which are already unfolding --- diplomatic manoeuvres and possibly discussions with Iran, a possible US acceptance of an Israel-Palestine process that includes all parties, and a review which (smaller hope here) might come to some sensible conclusions to limit the American march to trouble in Afghanistan/Pakistan --- continue unhindered.

Has the Obama Administration Brought Hamas into A Palestine Unity Government?

Last Thursday George Mitchell, the US envoy in the Middle East, in a conference calls with Jewish-American leaders, stated the full support of the Obama Administration for a Palestinian unity government. That in itself is a long-standing American policy; what was significant was that Mitchell indicated the unity government could include not only Fatah, the party behind the Palestianian Authority, but also Hamas.

The timing of Mitchell’s intervention was even more important. As of last Thursday, Egypt’s efforts to bring Fatah and Hamas together in “reconciliation” talks, scheduled for 22 February, appeared to be going nowhere. Although Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas had praised Cairo’s initiative but Hamas had refused unless the Palestinian Authority released its members from jails in the West Bank. This weekend, after Mitchell’s statement was widely publicised by the Obama Administration (and after British and French delegations had met with Hamas representatives in Beirut and Damascus and after three US Congressmen visited Gaza), Egypt was able to announce that the talks would proceed on Wednesday.

Of course, Mitchell continued to emphasise the long-standing conditions of the “Quartet” of the US-European Union-United Nations-Russia for Hamas’ political participation: halting violence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. But these demands have already been accepted, at least in their rhetoric, by the officials of Hamas, as the organisation moves away from its 1988 Charter. What has been needed, given the double standards applied to Israeli behaviour and that of Hamas, has been some sign of goodwill which would permit legitimacy for the Hamas leadership.

It is unclear what that sign, for Mitchell, was. On the surface, there was no need to recognise a “victorious” Hamas, because the party has been weakened by the Gazan conflict. While Hamas was not defeated militarily by Israel or even significantly damaged, and while it has had a short-term political boost --- especially compared with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority --- as the defender of Palestinians, it cannot turn this to a decisive advantage against Tel Aviv, as Hezbollah did in the Lebanon War in 2006. Politically, with its ostracism by the West, it still lacks the image of an established “authority”, in contrast to that given to the Palestine Liberation Organization from the 1980s.

However, Hamas’ inability to project “victory” --- at least to the West and Israel, if not its own people --- may have actually worked to its advantage and brought Mitchell’s signal. Because the group might be represented as needing to moderate its views in order to get any role in the peace process, the Obama Administration can contain the notion of Hamas as imminent threat to a new Israeli Government.

Indeed, with Israel itself in transition, Mitchell could put the challenge to Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu rather than Khaled Meshaal or Ismail Haniya: “Form a government that is ready for dialogue and cooperation in solving the Palestinian-Israeli problem.”

So the hand has been extended, very indirectly and at a distance but still extended, to Hamas by Obama. The 44th President of the United States of America, unlike his predecessor, has given priority to an meaningful peace process rather than the rigid mantra of “Israeli security”. If Hamas got the second of its nine lives through survival in the Gaza War, it now has a third political life. Whether that continues may be conditioned on whether it can find some consensus with Fatah now.

Mr Obama's World: Sunday Update on US Foreign Policy (22 February)

Latest Post: Mr Obama’s War - Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan
Latest Post: War on Terror Watch - British Officials “Colluded with Torture” of Detainees



7:15 p.m. Pakistani militants have released a senior Government administrator and his six guards, who were abducted earlier today in the Swat Valley.

5:30 p.m. GMT: NATO and Afghan forces have killed 14 militants in battles and airstrikes outside Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

In Iraq, a Sunni  member of parliament has been accused of ordering an April 2007 suicide bombing in the Parliament canteen that killed eight people, including a fellow Parliamentarian.

12 p.m. GMT (7 a.m. Washington): Pakistani Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah has said that his forces will only extend a 10-day cease-fire this week if the Pakistani Government introduces "practical steps". The announcement undercuts Saturday's announcement by the Government that a permanent cease-fire had been agreed.

Meanwhile, the cease-fire has been further dented by the abduction of the top government official and six of his guards in the Swat Valley.

US and Iraqi troops have launched a new offensive against insurgents in Nineveh province. The province includes Mosul, where bombings and shootings have continued despite the general downward trend in violence in Iraq.

A US soldier has died in a combat patrol near Baghdad.

The US military has belatedly admitted that 13 civilians died last week in Herat province in Afghanistan in an attack which also killed three militants. US spokesmen held out against any admission until video of a dead child prompted an investigation.

Al Shahab insurgents in Somalia have attacked African Union peacekeepers. Al Shahab claimed that two suicide bombers had been sent; African Union spokesman said there was mortar fire but no suicide bombing.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Updates on US Foreign Policy (21 February)

Latest Post: Atoms of Fear - Reality Check on That Iranian Nuclear Programme
Latest Post: Obama Administration to Detainees in Afghanistan - You Have No Rights
Latest Post: Secret Britain-Iran Talks in 2005 on Iraq, Tehran Nuclear Programme?



Evening Update: Pakistani Government officials say militants in Pakistan's Swat Valley have agreed to a "permanent cease-fire".

Afternoon Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met Chinese leaders in Beijing, stating, ""It is essential that the United States and China have a positive, cooperative relationship." Clinton also put priorities in order: while she had discussed human rights matters with President Hu Jintao, "Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises."

Morning Update (8:30 a.m. GMT; 3:30 a.m. Washington): In a step that was foreshadowed by Syrian President Bashir al-Assad (pictured) in his interview with The Guardian of London, the US will resume direct talks with Damascus this week. The State Department's Acting Assistant Secretary for the Near East, Jeffrey Feltman, has requested a meeting with the Syrian Ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said, "The meeting is an opportunity for dialogue to discuss our concerns with the Syrians," Duguid said. "There remain key differences between our governments."

Three NATO coalition soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device on Friday in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan.

UPDATED --- Not a Bombshell: The Report on Iran's Uranium and US (Non-)Reaction

See Also: Text of the International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Iran’s Nuclear Programme



Update (2:45 p.m.): The lead story on CNN International's website, "Experts: Iran ready to build nuclear weapon",  is not a "scary interpretation" of the IAEA report: it is an outright distortion. Rather than quote from the report or the officials who compiled it, they refer to the "Institute for Science and International Security", who have "interpreted" the report.

Thus we get the scary side that "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon without any of the explanation, details, and caveats offered by United Nations officials. Or, for that matter, other "experts" who might have offered the appropriate context for the report.

Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation offers a useful corrective: "Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You".

On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest report on Iranian nuclear production. It was a classic half-full, half-empty analysis: those wanting to play up the Iranian threat could note that that Iran has produced more enriched uranium than previously estimated, declaring that Tehran now has enough material for "one bomb". Those preferring a more measured response could highlight the conclusion  that Iran's enrichment programme has slowed "considerably".

Some in the American and British "mainstream" media will go for the scarier interpretation --- in The New York Times, it's Iran understates enriched uranium level by one-third in Paragraph One, Enough for a Bomb in Paragraph Two. However, it is not only Agence France Presse that is pointing to the slower pace of enrichment. The Washington Post headlines, "Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program" and leads with, "The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration."

Indeed, UN officials are also providing the general reassurance that "the discrepancy results from Iran’s estimates versus careful measurement", rather than any deception by Tehran, and that "the inconsistency [is] reasonable for a new enrichment plant". That could be important, countering the soundbites of "experts" like Gary Milhollin on the higher level of enriched uranium: "It's worse than we thought".

Of course, enrichment is not the key issue for an Iranian nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy, programme. That issue is whether Iran is "weaponising" with any programme to develop nuclear warheads, and there is no evidence that Iran has reversed its suspension of that effort in 2003. As a UN official told The New York Times, "The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and...atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations."

Most importantly, it is not the media reaction --- or even that matters here but the response of the Obama Administration. In the NYT, "a senior administration official" took a We're Watching line:

There is a steady timeline of improvement, especially in terms of mastering the efficiency of the centrifuges. Everyone’s nervous and worried about the possibility of Iran pursuing a clandestine capability.

There is no Administration response in The Washington Post.

Of course, with the President and Secretary of State outside the US, the Administration could be in a holding pattern until next week. Yet it's still significant, I think, that Obama's officials were not primed to return to the Bush Administration's blueprint of Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. In effect, they've allowed the UN to take the lead, damping down any media hyperbole.

And that means, I think, that engagement with Iran is still the priority for this Administration. No bombshells here, just the steadier if slower emphasis on diplomacy.

So keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it  plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.