Back on June 9, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reported that Dennis Ross, then the administration’s point man on Iran, was too pro-Israel. After pointing out that a couple of other administration officials had been involved with high profile Iran related jobs in the administraiton, Kessler wrote:
Ross’s most visible action thus far was a trip to the Persian Gulf in late April to reassure anxious Arab officials that the United States would not cut a deal with Iran and abandon them. Many Arab officials are skeptical of Ross because of the perception that he tilted heavily toward Israel during the Clinton years.
I found the tone of the article – with its misplaced designation of Ross as pro-Israel – disturbing. What I should have realized was that it was indicative that something was about to happen with Ross. Based on the negative tilt of the article, I should have assumed that he was going to be demoted.
It’s important to remember that often a newspaper can the battleground in bureaucratic turf wars. It would seem that someone was trying to knock Ross down a peg by pitching the pro-Israel angle to a Washington Post reporter.
And indeed, Monday, Barak Ravid of Ha’aretz reported that Ross was out of a job at the State Department. (via memeorandum) While Ravid entertained other possibilities for Ross’s reassignment, he started off with these negative one:
Washington insiders speculate that a number of reasons moved the administration to reassign Ross. One possibility is Iran’s persistent refusal to accept Ross as a U.S. emissary given the diplomat’s Jewish background as well as his purported pro-Israel leanings. Ross is known to maintain contacts with numerous senior officials in Israel’s defense establishment and the Israeli government.
Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem surmised that another possibility for Ross’ ouster is his just-released book, “Myths, Illusions, and Peace – Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East.”
Ross, who co-wrote the book with David Makovsky, a former journalist who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued against a linkage between the Palestinian issue and the West’s policy against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Ross and Mokovsky also raised the possibility of military action against Iran.
The Kessler article actually presented the book in Ross’s favor, so I’m not convinced that speculation is accurate. Afterwards Ravid presents the possibility that the change in position was actually a promotion.
While Martin Peretz entertained the possibility that Ross was removed from the Iran position due to his being Jewish, in the end he believed it was because the administration was rejecting the military option against Iran. However Ben Smith reported that Ross was apparently still working for the State Department.
Now Helene Cooper (via memeorandum) reports In a Staff Shuffle, Signs of Obama’s Direction on Mideast:
As Mark Landler of The New York Times reported on Tuesday, Mr. Ross will be taking on an expanded role covering Iran and other Middle East issues at the National Security Council. White House officials still haven’t officially announced the move — hopefully they won’t keep Mr. Ross hanging on a limb for as long as the State Department did before announcing his job one night back in February. But several officials confirm that it is about to happen.
The big question, though, is why? Obama administration officials have been cryptic when asked about the reason for the shuffle. Does it mean that the White House is the real center of the action when it comes to foreign policy? Were there too many special envoys over at the State Department? Was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not giving Mr. Ross enough face time? Or is Mr. Ross going to assume more of a role in Mr. Obama’s evolving Middle East policy, particularly in relations with Israel?
Senior administration officials said that Mr. Obama values Mr. Ross, who backed Mr. Obama early on during the election campaign, and wanted the benefit of his strategic thinking nearby. One official suggested that the combination of Mr. Ross, a veteran Arab-Israeli negotiator and longtime foreign policy hand, and National Security Adviser General James L. Jones would help the administration to come up with a better, more cohesive long-term strategy for America’s relations with the world.
So it would seem that contrary to what Ravid suggested, Ross’s move is a promotion. So the Kessler article is a bit of a puzzle. If Ross is moving up, what was the point of painting him as too pro-Israel? Maybe someone wanted to derail the promotion.
Or maybe, labeling Ross as pro-Israel was meant as an attribute, not a liability. Consider the end of Cooper’s article:
In recent weeks, Mr. Obama has struck a sharp tone with Israel, calling for a halt to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and elevating the Palestinians, in his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo earlier this month, to equal footing with the Israelis.
Those actions have earned for Mr. Obama some wariness in Israel, where recent polls show that 51 percent of Israelis sampled said that Mr. Obama cared more about Palestinian statehood than about Israeli security. Mr. Obama’s administration, from Mrs. Clinton to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to Mr. Ross, is filled with politicians and foreign policy experts who have high standing among the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, but moving Mr. Ross from the State Department to right next door at the White House could help to protect Mr. Obama’s flank even further when it comes to Israel.
Is it possible that Dennis Ross is being moved to the White House in order to maintain the fiction that this is a pro-Israel administration? (Consider Vice President Biden’s discomfort at the question.)
Israel Matzav noted something going in the Washington Post. First Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer got an op-ed column to dispute Charles Krauthammer’s column from two weeks ago. Gllenn Kessler reported about a ruling – of dubious legal authority – from 30 years to show that the United States opposes “settlements.” It’s reasonable to assume that the administration is orchestrating this campaign to put Israel on the diplomatic defensive.
And while Barry Rubin doesn’t agree that the administration is acting particularly hostile to Israel, he questions why the administration would show so little regard for Israel’s security, when pushing for a reopening of Gaza to include cement and pipe shipments.
If the administration thinks that it can fight the impression that it is not sympathetic to Israel, by promoting a man who – as Danielle Pletka observed – turned a blind eye to Arafat’s terror tactics in order to keep the peace process going, it is really clueless about the Middle East. Similar actions have no doubt contirbuted to the President’s unpopularity in Israel. (via memeorandum.
UPDATE: In an e-mail Barry Rubin clarified that his position is that, as yet, the administration has taken no concrete actions against Israel, nor exerted material pressure on Israel despite statements which can obviously be interpreted as threatening .
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.