Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Oren, Abrams, and Ross Address AIPAC: What Should U.S. Foreign Policy Be?

March 3rd, 2013 - 8:18 am

The opening foreign policy session of AIPAC featured the three major foreign-policy analysts working on the Middle East crisis: Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. and well-known historian Michael Oren, followed by the former Obama advisor Dennis Ross, and then Bush administration Middle East advisor Elliott Abrams (who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations).

What is most notable about their three presentations, in our estimate, is their essential agreement on where our country stands, and what must be done in the future. That Ross comes from advising a Democrat president and Abrams a Republican one makes little difference when it comes to what they say needs to be accomplished.

In Ambassador Oren’s Q and A with moderator Frank Sesno, he made the following points. The forthcoming trip by President Obama, he said, is important because it will be a message to the world that the United States stands behind Israel. As ambassador, of course, Oren is first and foremost a diplomat—who represents his government. That means he has to be circumspect. He is not expressing his personal opinion, but framing what in effect is a message from the prime minister he serves. 

Hence Oren stressed that when Netanyahu put Likud on record as favoring a two-state solution of a Palestinian state standing in peace next to Israel, it was a game changer, proving that Israel is taking steps to peace. Now, he said, the Palestinians have to show that they too will take the very same steps 

On the issue of Syria, Oren said that “Israel will not remain silent.” Assad must be forced to leave.  Calling Assad “reckless and unpredictable,” Oren stressed that his departure will also be a major blow to Iran, which is arming his forces.

Turning to Iran, Oren said the Iranian regime must be told it will not be permitted to go nuclear, and  that all options must be on the table. Iran, he stressed, has engaged in diplomacy that has not worked, and is moving ahead to full attainment of a nuclear arsenal. The question, then, is when will it be too late to prevent them, and the issue is the price of inaction.

Concluding his remarks, Ambassador Oren stressed the importance of maintaining U.S. administrative and congressional support for the state of Israel. Given what he called the “Jihadist view of the world” held by the mullahs of Iran, Oren presented in effect a skepticism about the possibility of getting Iran to negotiate seriously. As to his own state and the Palestinian issue, Oren argued that Hamas cannot be negotiated with unless it recognizes Israel, and that Abbas of the PA must be told that he cannot put into place a reconciliation with Hamas, which would permanently make a peace process forever impossible. That, he said, would be a “game changer.” 

Next came a dialogue between Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross. What is most interesting is the essential similar analysis each presented. Abrams began by saying that the president’s forthcoming trip was a good sign, and meant he faced a challenge telling the Israeli public that he understands them and the challenges they face. Ross added that it could be a new beginning for both Obama and PM Netanyahu, presenting a chance to establish a new connection for the president with the Israeli people.

On the issue of the threat from Iran, Abrams said that in his view, the U.S. was negotiating not with Iran, but only with itself. Iran came to the table, said progress had been made, but essentially walked away without giving anything in the form of a serious proposal on its side. Iran’s game is to talk and get closer to attainment of a nuclear weapon, and the regime is using negotiations as a ploy to buy time.  Ross agreed, saying that Iran made only excuses, saying it listened to what the U.S. said and offered nothing itself that was serious. As Abrams then added, the world was “failing to step Iran from getting closer to a nuclear weapon.” 

On what might happen between the president and the Israeli prime minister in the forthcoming trip, Ross said the public would not learn what happens in private, but that neither the U.S. nor Israel wants its own hands tied so what it might do in the future was limited by a public agreement. What he hoped both wanted is to achieve a better personal understanding between each leader.

On Syria, Ross said Assad must leave, and that the U.S. should help accelerate his departure, while preventing a new state leaving Jihadists in charge. The U.S. must use its power to influence the new landscape after Assad leaves.

Agreeing with Ross, Abrams praised Secretary of State John Kerry for changing policy and giving humanitarian aid to Syria’s rebels fighting the Assad regime. It was, he said, both a good sign and a “terrific” step. Previously, he noted, the U.S. through the UN had given millions of aid that was funneled through the Assad regime and its Red Crescent agency. Kerry ended this, and he hoped it was not too late to have an effect. It was one step in trying to strengthen moderate forces against extremists. 

Most surprising was Dennis Ross’s next statement. Ross said that humanitarian aid was not sufficient. Instead, he said there had to be “lethal aid” — in other words, military equipment and supplies. The issue was to these writers a throwback to the ’80s and the issue facing the Reagan administration it had to decide what had to be done to stop the Sandinistas and Marxist guerrillas in the region and stop the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Should there have been military aid to the contras?  This was a policy some say a younger Elliott Abrams supported. Now, the Democrat advisor Dennis Ross openly came out for such aid to Syria’s rebels. Ross said military aid would be a true balance of force to make the opponents of Assad an equal force to Syria’s army. 

Finally, turning to Egypt, Ross said the Muslim Brotherhood was not being inclusive, as some thought it would be. He expected them to try and take power, but was surprised at the sectarian path they took. Abrams then said: “I agree completely with Dennis.” Both said the Brotherhood only won with 51 percent of the vote but was disregarding the wishes of the rest of the country whose support they did not have.  The money given them by the U.S. was enough to bail Egypt out for only three months or a bit more. After that, both feared that the regime would be near collapse. Abrams, in fact, thought they would no longer be in power within a few years. Ross responded that they had to respect the rights of Christian Coptics in Egypt as well as respecting all international agreements made in the past by Egypt.

The last point was a brief discussion on Israel and the Palestinians. Abrams feared that while the U.S. would stand firm and not negotiate with Hamas, European nations would quickly do just that, and try to forge an agreement between the PLO and Hamas. If such took place, he warned, it would forever make a peace impossible. 

The discussion, therefore, was a firm dose of reality for the beginning of a conference that will have more substantive discussion of these pressing issues.

More from Bridget Johnson: Oren: ‘Thank God the Golan Heights is in the Hands of Israel.’

Update: Video of the Sunday morning session is now online at AIPAC.org.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and Islam's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Islamism", nor "Radical Islam", nor 'Islamists" nor "Islamofascism", nor "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!], against all the rest of mankind." (John Quincy Adams)

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog." (Winston Churchill)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What should U.S. foreign policy be? Well, I know this much, it shouldn't be what it is now or what it has been over the last decade. Even picking something else at random would likely be an improvement.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Barack Obama does not "support Israel." His plans to go there are intended to provide a show of support in lieu of the real thing.

Anyone who at this point does not believe Barack Obama wants Iran to go nuclear has not been paying attention. It was obvious from the beginning, but it became crystal-clear when he sat on his hands, and kept silent, during the Iranian "Green Revolution" of 2009.

His plan has always been to use the promise of US protection from the threat of Iranian nukes to force Israel to grant the "Palestinians" the most extravagant wish list they can dream up, so that he will retroactively "earn" his Nobel by midwifing the birth of the "Palestinian" state that will gladden the heart of his old friend Rashid Khalidi. And if, after he leaves office, Iran decides to nuke the tattered vestige of Israel that this dream deal of his leaves intact---well, isn't that just terrible? Tsk, tsk. Who could possibly have foreseen it?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A majority of the people in the Middle East want Islamism.

There's nothing we can do. We do nothing, like in Turkey, they get voted in. We meddle, Islamists come to power. We don't meddle, Islamists come to power.

So what should we do? How about mind our own business? If we're lucky, they'll fight among themselves. If they don't, and try something, we simply bomb a country to smithereens. No nationbuilding.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I concur except where you said "islamism" it s/b Islam and where you said "islamists" it s/b Muslims, and that's the big problem, it's not just some wayward subset.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Now, the Democrat advisor Dennis Ross openly came out for such aid to Syria’s rebels. Ross said military aid would be a true balance of force to make the opponents of Assad an equal force to Syria’s army.

Equal? That's not a way to support your allies and defeat tyrants.

And handing over cash and weapons to an opposition with a significant presence of Islamofascists isn't a good idea either if you are interested in sustainable peace.

We have probably missed the window for direct US intervention to attain a decisive victory, followed by the establishment of a rights-respecting government that might have a chance of securing a sustainable peace.

Once again, the nattering nabobs of moral equivalence, who think they are "above" getting their nations' hands dirty with the effort to interdict tyranny, have let a bad situation fester into something worse. So much for their "genius".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And how in the world is the U.S. supposed to stop Islamists from coming to power in Syria? Ross must be daffy. We didn't have that kind of muscle one way or the other in Egypt and we certainly don't have it in Syria, a place that will fracture 7 ways from Sunday if Assad goes.

The days of making countries out of nothing on a map, calling them Jordan and putting some king from somewhere else on the throne are over. May as well try and arm the rebels with armored model-t's and blimps.

And then there's the next inevitable country coming there soon - Kurdsville.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In other words, they recited in unison "Nice doggie, nice doggie".

But no one is looking for a stick, we both (US and Israel) have them. Israel probably has the will to use its stick, but lacks a reason that will pass muster before "world opinion" ( a significant portion of Israel needs be a smoldering cinder before it passes that muster).

I don't think the US is even contemplating using a stick.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ron Radosh, as an expert on the Cold War, should know that the issue of pre-emptive war was debated vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R.

And the consensus was quickly reached that a pre-emptive war in the absence of an imminent military threat was far too risky.

Israel can launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if they choose. I would support whatever decisions they make in that regard.

But the U.S. should not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. We tried a pre-emptive war in Iraq with disastrous results.

Once you start bombing a nation that has prepared for years for such an eventuality, you can't be sure of a successful outcome.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wish I could see a "moderate" route to peace between Israel and her neighbors, but the problem as I see it is resistance to modernity within Iran and the Arab states. There is also our dependence on Mid-East oil--a long standing problem that I traced here http://clarespark.com/2009/09/11/oil-politics-and-obamas-view-of-israeli-history/. I don't see diplomacy solving this problem, no matter how experienced the diplomats in question.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All