Flint and Hillary Mann Leverett write in the NY Times that Dennis Ross sees any potential negotiations with Iran as merely a formality, designed to fail, and ultimately only intended to fortify a case for a US attack on Iran:
In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.
Which should not come as a surprise because this is exactly what I said previously in when I decoded Ross' "Zionist Speak" into plain English:
"We have to at least make a pretense of talking to Iran, in order to at least make going to war more palatable with public opinion. These negotiations must be accompanied by greater economic pressure on Iran through sanctions, in order to force Iran to give up its enrichment program and accept Israeli regional domination. If the Iranians do not buckle, we can then claim that they have proven to want nuclear weapons, and then we can proceed with attacking Iran."
Comments