Former adviser warns Obama on Iran

Former Obama adviser Dennis Ross has been outspoken over the last year or so in urging the administration to use leverage against Iran to reach a deal on nuclear weapons that would be acceptable to the West. When the president in his State of the Union address instead threatened once again to veto sanctions, it reminded us that the administration is ignoring all outside advice and living in its own parallel universe in which reconciliation with Iran is viable.

In an event hosted by the pro-Israel group JINSA this past week, Ross virtually pleaded with the administration to stop chasing a deal. “The question is: what happens over the next few months to get a deal? It’s pretty clear at this point that the Iranians don’t feel much need to conclude an agreement, even though the P5+1 has demonstrated an awful lot of flexibility,” he cautioned. “Therefore, it’s important Iran not believe that we want an agreement more than they do. […] We can’t get a long-term deal unless we raise the price to Iran of refusing it”

If the administration won’t pass sanctions, Ross offered, why not show strength in some other way? “We could intercept clandestine arms shipments to Houthis in Yemen or to Hamas. It would also be smart for the Administration to engage Congress to develop an understanding of the consequences for Iran of violating a final deal, ” he suggested. “If these aren’t spelled out in advance, the United States will spend valuable time debating how to respond only after violations have been detected. This would be consistent with negotiations, and would send the message to Iran that the price for cheating is clear.”

This is all good advice, but misunderstands, I think, where the president is coming from. President Obama does want a deal more than Iran does. His foreign policy is in shambles, and he fears most of all yet another conflict with another Muslim country. Iran has learned it has nothing to fear from the United States and that intransigence pays dividends.

Unlike Ross who cares about getting a good deal, it is obvious Obama is content to keep the interim deal in place unless Iran will finally accept a sweetheart deal of the sort Obama is only too anxious to offer. Co-panelist and former Bush defense official John Hanna concurred, saying, “It’s an irresponsible and disturbing strategy where the White House has become the main advocate for justifying Iran walking away from the talks. This demonstrates naiveté about how to conduct international negotiations: its’ now Iran and the President against Congress. The President should use the threat of Congress passing sanctions — even if he vetoes them – to go to the Iranians and say ‘I’m working with you, but we don’t have much time, so make some concessions.’”

The administration would like to portray proponents of sanctions as dupes of “donors and others” (code words for “Israel Lobby”) or “war mongers.” It has tried to cast Israel’s elected prime minister as an impediment to peace and improperly interfering in American politics (although it was Obama who brought the British prime minister to lobby Congress). Ross, however, reminded us that our non-Israeli allies also are tearing their hair out, suspecting, as do Obama’s domestic critics, that the “fix” is in for a bad deal or Iran is being allowed to slip into its place in the nuclear club of nations. “Our Gulf Arab allies are highly suspicious of any deal, because they fear it will mean that we begin to treat Iran, not them, as a regional partner. They also fear a deal would allow Iran more resources to begin challenging them in the region,” he says. We should, Ross warns, be trying to reassure them and the Israelis, not treat them as the problem. “We should be trying to find ways to address our allies’ concerns, first and foremost by competing with Iran rather than ignoring its regional behavior.”

While Congress moves forward on sanctions, the president’s representations of the Middle East are proving to be thoroughly wrong. He said Yemen was a success story; it’s government collapsed. He claims the Islamic State has been halted; no military official or neutral observer would agree. And he insists the interim Iranian deal has “stopped” Iran’s program; numerous fact checkers have found this to be false. These glaring falsehoods confirm he is impervious to facts or willing to deliberate mislead everyone who is still listening to him.

We will see if Congress can move promptly with one voice on sanctions. But this we know: The president is incapable of getting Iran to accept a good deal, so the only question is whether the interim deal is the “new normal” or whether he reaches a deal that backs down from positions he once represented as essential to a deal. With the death of the Saudi king, the region could not be more unstable, nor could our ability to influence events be lower. At least I hope it can’t get any lower.

The Washington Post