Omid Memarian: Is Dennis Ross Iran’s real envoy?
<p>As expected among the foreign policy community, <a rel=”nofollow”>Dennis Ross was appointed</a> Iran’s “special advisor” and curiously not the “special envoy”– which begs the question of whether or not he will be the major voice in Washington on US-Iran relations.</p> <p>Appointing an envoy or advisor to Iran has posed a <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711161820″>challenge</a> to the U.S. administration, considering the complex involvement of this country with most of the U.S. conflicts in the Middle East. The main concern has been to appoint a diplomat who can talk to Tehran, a regime that Washington loves to hate despite its significant influence on most of the U.S. foreign policy priorities in the region. </p> <p>Dennis Ross is an<a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=8″> experienced diplomat</a>, whose connection to Israel ensures that the concerns of U.S.’s closest ally in the Middle East is addressed appropriately during any possible negotiations or mutual agreements, hence alleviating any <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ross_Warning_iran/2008/04/23/90322.html”>backlash from Tel Aviv</a> or their supporters in Washington. Israelis know that Dennis Ross will represent their interests and not betray them–making him a smart choice as the Persian Gulf special advisor, (although practically he is Iran’s special advisor). </p> <p>However, this is only half the story. Dennis Ross arrives at scene with considerable political baggage. For the authorities in Tehran, Ross’ approach towards Iran is reminiscent of Bush’s unpopular first-term policies. Placing Ross in this position is similar to Iran sending a hostage-taker or dubious <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.cfr.org/publication/14324/”>Revolutionary Guard</a> Commander to represent Iran–an uncomfortable situation for the U.S. at best. Iranians need to feel a level of comfort and trust in anyone they sit with at the negotiation table–an element sorely missing in this equation. </p> <p>Iranians have a longstanding and historic mistrust of U.S. motivations and a psyche dominated by conspiracy theory, making negotiating with this new advisor synonymous to dealing with John Bolton. President Obama will be hard pressed to sell his premise of “change” to Iran through Dennis Ross.</p> <p>In an interview for a piece I filed with <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45902″>IPS News Agency</a> on the implications of this new appointment, a member of parliament in Tehran supposed that the choice of Ross as the man in Washington in charge of designing a new approach toward Iran, is recipe for failure in future possible negotiations with Iran.</p> <p>However, although Dennis Ross, as the new man in town, might initiate new suggestions or directives on how to deal with Iran, he will not be the major figure on the scene. </p> <p>The administration’s approach to Iran is unique: <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1873532,00.html”>George Mitchell </a>was appointed as special envoy to the Middle East, with responsibility for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5689545.ece”>Richard Holbrooke </a>was appointed as special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Dennis Ross became “special advisor”.</p> <p>The nature of dealing with Iran is different than dealing with Pakistan, Afghanistan or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are not going to see any rapid or major changes in this relationship; while Dennis Ross takes “a broad strategic look at the region,” others may act as the true envoys. </p> <p>One key player will be William Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, whose tone and gesture towards Tehran are far more preferable for Iranians. In an interview <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=340″>Karim Sadjadpour</a>, a leading Middle East researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington told me: </p> <blockquote>”It’s my understanding that Undersecretary of State Bill Burns will continue to play a key role in formulating Iran policy, which I think is an ideal choice.”</blockquote> <p>Another key player is Lee Hamilton, the only person in Washington who has ever communicated with Iran’s supreme leader: </p> <blockquote>”In addition to 34 years in Congress and his role as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, he’s the only American who has actually had a successful mediation with Iran’s supreme leader. After Haleh Esfandiari of the Wilson Center was arrested in Tehran in May 2007, Hamilton sent a careful letter, couched largely in religious terms, to Khamenei. The leader responded positively, and Esfandiari was released from prison.” (<a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503122.html”>Washington Post</a>)</blockquote> <p>Is Dennis Ross Iran’s real envoy?<br />
The fact that Hamilton has met the president twice since the inauguration, paired with his realistic approach toward Tehran, position him as a key figure in shaping the administration’s strategy toward Tehran. Hamilton’s plan to engage Iran, is a far cry from the Bush Administration’s rhetoric and years of failed policies which only marginalizing Iran in the region and the world, while strengthened the hardliners in power in Tehran.</p> <blockquote>”The starting points for U.S.-Iran discussions, Hamilton said, would be to ‘state our respect for the Iranian people, renounce regime change as an instrument of U.S. policy, seek opportunities for a range of dialogue across a range of issues, and acknowledge Iran’s security concerns and its right to civilian nuclear power.’ He said Obama has already signaled that he wants such a conversation, without preconditions.” (<a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503122.html”>Washington Post</a>)</blockquote> <p>Burns and Hamilton are sure to play influential roles in the U.S. strategy towards Iran. Clearly, the appointment of Dennis Ross has more of a domestic consumption for the administration than an actual affect on what Obama’s approach towards Iran. He wants to get the job done and does not want possible U.S.-Iran negotiations to become a bridge to nowhere. The triad of Ross, Burns and Hamilton will serve the President’s pragmatism well. </p>
White House: Sebelius is pick for HHS secretary
President Obama on Saturday asked Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, according to two White House officials.
Nancy Snow: If Edward Bernays Were Obama’s PR Counsel
<p>Larry Tye is the author of <em>The Father of Spin: Edward R. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations</em>. He is currently writing a book about the legendary baseball player, Satchel Paige. I sat down with him last week at the Newhouse School, Syracuse University, to talk about Edward Bernays, his propaganda legacy, and how he might counsel President Obama today. </p> <p><strong>Why is there such an aversion to this concept propaganda in the United States?</strong></p> <blockquote>Propaganda has different meanings depending on who is using the word. To Edward Bernays, it meant simply getting out there with information to counteract whatever was going on. He felt the best way to do it was with information. As long as the information was accurate and on point, then that was a wonderful way of persuading people. Today it has taken on a more cynical tone because it’s assumed to be skewed information. Ironically, Bernays had a very pure notion of what propaganda was. It’s the United States getting out there and telling its story. It has a lot of great stories to tell and it ought to be there doing that. That can serve a political purpose, as long as it’s the truth. </blockquote> <blockquote>Bernays later skewed his own concept by giving a lot of information that was not either truthful information or was not honest in terms of divulging the sources of it. So when he took America to war in Guatemala in the 1950s, he didn’t tell people that the information was coming from his very self-interested client, United Fruit Company, which didn’t want the leftist government in there, because United was losing the wonderful deal it had set up with the old Banana Republic dictators. </blockquote> <blockquote>So [today] it is still partly a question of if the information is honest and partly a question of are the sources of information divulged, and as long as it’s done in a straightforward way, it’s very effective propaganda and it’s something that is easy to get behind. </blockquote> <strong>
Is it possible to have propaganda in an age of transparency?</strong> <blockquote>It is, only in the pure sense of what the word propaganda means. In an age of transparency, if your information truly comes from credible, openly divulged sources, and it’s accurate information, transparency is a great thing, because it lets people go back and see that all that is true. <p><br />
Edward Bernays represented both sides of just about every issue. He was the good guy and the bad guy on things. He was good in suggesting that propaganda can have a really positive educating value, and he was bad in giving it this pejorative sense that it has taken on today. </blockquote> </p> <p>Regarding Barack Obama, Larry Tye had this to say to our new president. On the one hand, he doesn’t think that Bernays would have much to counsel 44 about political persuasion and propaganda. “If Edward Bernays were the father of spin, then Obama is the son.” So Bernays could only bow his head in deference to a president who may not need a full-time public relations counsel. On the other hand, every president has to take stock of his own political capital and the political persuasion tools he uses to control it. Where one has to pause is separating a righteous and noble cause from a distortion that conceals true motives and goals. </p> <p>Every American president starts out believing in his righteous and noble cause that is strictly for the benefit of the people, but he often ends up getting involved in the Big Sell. As Tye says, “Bernays is instructive because he shows how it can be done right and how it can be abused. It’s ironic that we can draw so many of the same right and wrong lessons from the same historical figure.” </p> <p>Public relations, according to Bernay’s biographer Larry Tye, is a profession that has the capacity to do great good and great bad. Edward Bernays is instructive on both ends. By encouraging study of Bernay’s philosophy and methods, then perhaps we can move this profession, and the American presidency that uses it, to its fullest potential of bettering the public good. </p> <p></p> <p><br />
</p>
Obama taps Sebelius for HHS secretary
Washington — Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is President Obama’s choice for secretary of health and human services, a White House source said today.
Romney again tops conservatives’ straw poll
Conservative activists on Saturday picked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as the best 2012 Republican presidential candidate. It was the third consecutive year he came out on top. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was second, ahead of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Rush Limbaugh At CPAC: Doubles Down On Wanting Obama To Fail (VIDEO)
<p>At his closing speech at the CPAC conference, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his widely-controversial claim that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, insisting that he meant what he said, and chastising those who were critical of him. </p> <p>”This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we’ve got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, welfare that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail they proclaimed it a failure…. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?”</p> <p>The crowd, watching in three individual ballrooms because of overcrowding, went absolutely wild. </p> <center><div class=”videowrapper vid462″><div class=”videoinner”> </div></div></center> <p>”I know what’s going on. We are in the aspects here of a historic presidency, I know that. But let me be honest again, I got over the historical aspects of that in November. President Obama is our president. President Obama stands for some things. He could be a Martian. He could be from Michigan. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me what his race is. It doesn’t matter. He is liberal. That’s what matters to me…. I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed.” </p> <p>Limbaugh, whose speech went on more than an hour than what was planned, didn’t end there. </p> <p>”Ladies and gentleman of the United States, the Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents, and policies, and now war for the first time. The Democrat party does not stop at failure. Talk to judge Robert Bork, talk to justice Clarence Thomas about how they try to destroy lives, reputations and character. And I’m supposed to say I don’t want the president to fail? We are in for a real battle. We are talking about the United States of America… remaining the country we were all born into and reared and grown into. And it is under assault, it has always been under assault. But it has never been under assault like this, from within.” </p> <p>The red meat speech was more than well received among the adoring conservative crowd which punctuated his address with repeated standing applause. On the flip side, it is hard to see how the elected officials of the Republican Party welcome this. Limbaugh’s first declaration of hope for Obama’s failure put a lot of GOPers on the line: did they stand with the brash talk show host against the president? Though, to be sure, there was little push back. Now, however, Limbaugh’s invited more of the same line of questioning. <br />
</p>
Judith Ellis: I.O.U. Who?
<p>The documentary,<em> I.O.U.S.A</em>, was recently brought to my attention and it will probably be the most sobering clip that you will ever see about the state of the economy. I was aghast at the findings. I think it should run three times a week on all TV outlets for a solid month during prime time. I just wished that I had watched it a bit earlier. It’s nearly 1:40 AM and I’m afraid I will get no sleep tonight. </p> <p>A few of the most awakening facts are even if we ended the war in Iraq, rolled back the Bush tax cuts, and eliminated earmarks and pork barrel spending, our problems will not be solved. Another very, very sobering fact is the Trade Deficit. This is simply outrageous! We have become dead last among the nations of the world that are buying more than their selling. Not to mention what we are receiving are cheap goods. With a country as big and rich in intellect and resources, it is shameful that we have become indebted to paper shufflers and not innovated by product producers.</p> <p>It is incredibly hypocritical that those who are screaming about the current deficit spending and continued tax cuts have presided over the largest deficit spending in our country’s history. Both the Reagan and Bush W. administrations were the worst. Yet, we still hear the Republican leaders in Congress today railing for more of the same. This is insane. The deficit increased tremendously throughout the Reagan administration and we were not even in a war and I guess those tax cuts did not work as planned either. </p> <p></p> <p>There are so many outrageous things in this video that its simply mind boggling that we could have allowed ourselves to get here. Who could have ever thought that we could have two wars, tax cuts, and personal debt spending, and there not be a perfect storm? It was no secret why Secretary of State Clinton tread softly in China on human rights issues. China currently holds the largest denomination of our Treasury Securities. </p> <p>We most certainly have had a leadership problem. To think that Paul O’Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, was asked to lie about his release because he told the Bush administration in 2002 the truth about our dire situation is a stunning omission, though perhaps for many not surprising in the least. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney should be ashamed of their actions. Maybe that Truth and Reconciliation Commission is indeed necessary. I wonder who else was told to lie in many matters. Mr. O’Neill appeared too honorable for the former administration. I guess Secretary Paulson was more to their liking for whatever reason.</p> <p>At the end of the documentary my question was not when we were going to get out of this crisis, but how. It is going to require the effort of everyone to emerge from this very serious deficit crisis. As friend of mine often says, “debt is like cancer; it kills.” But we really must know how bad it really is. I knew we were in a major crisis, but not to this extent. This is apparently what the president was aware of and chided for. Others thought that his Inaugural Address and tone thereafter were too somber. Because President Obama is so hopeful, many could not help but to think that he was bracing us for something huge. </p> <p><em>This is huge!</em></p>
Romney Wins CPAC Poll, Palin Tied For Third
<p>In the first strong indication of where conservative hearts lie for the 2012 presidential race, Mitt Romney won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, earning the backing of 20 percent of the crowd. It was his former Massachusetts Governor’s third straight win and followed a well-received speech to the CPAC crowd just one day earlier.</p> <p>The results of the CPAC Straw Poll provide a small, albeit interesting window into the affections and leanings of the conservative movement. Following Romney, the next largest vote recipients included, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal with 14 percent of the vote, Rep. Ron Paul with 13 percent and Gov. Sarah Palin with 13 percent.</p> <p>For the Alaska Governor, the belle of the conservative movement in the ’08 election, the results aren’t the best of news. Her non-appearance at CPAC, however, may have contributed to the tied-for-third-place finish. Moderate Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, earned one percent of the vote and was ridiculed by moderator Tony Fabrizio for being Barack Obama’s favorite Republican.</p> <p>With roughly two years to go until formal campaigning begins on the Republican side of the aisle, the results of the CPAC poll are more a temperature of the conservative movement at this point in time than an indication of who will end up the presidential nominee. Nevertheless, Republicans don’t take these polls lightly. The results can provide a boost for a potential candidate or hurt the morale of another. Though the affect is never as strong as it seems.</p> <p>In 2007, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney etched out a win over former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by a margin of 21 percent to 17 percent. Sen. John McCain, who wound up winning the nomination, came in fifth with 12 percent of the vote. In 2008, Romney won again, narrowly beating John McCain, 35 percent to 34 percent, even though Romney had officially dropped out of the race a few days before the poll was released.</p> <p>More than 1,700 people cast ballots in the 2009 CPAC poll, 57 percent of who were between the ages 18 and 25. Of the respondents, 95 percent said they disapproved of the job that President Obama was doing, only four percent approved. Meanwhile, 70 percent approved of the job Republicans in Congress were doing, 29 percent said they disapproved.</p> <p>Here are the official results:</p> <p>Mitt Romney – 20 percent<br />
Bobby Jindal – 14 percent<br />
Ron Paul -13 percent<br />
Sarah Palin – 13 percent<br />
Newt Gingrich -10 percent<br />
Mike Huckabee – 7 percent<br />
Mark Sanford – 4 percent<br />
Rudy Guiliani – 3 percent<br />
Tim Pawlenty – 2 percent<br />
Charlie Crist – 1 percent<br />
Undecided – 9 percent</p>
Obama Plays Basketball At The Interior Department Saturday
<p>WASHINGTON — After a night of watching hoops, it was time for the president to take the court himself.</p> <p>Barack Obama played basketball for nearly two hours Saturday at the Interior Department, a few blocks from the White House. On Friday night, Obama watched from courtside at the Verizon Center as his hometown Chicago Bulls lost to the Washington Wizards.</p> <p>For the pickup game, the president took along a friend from Chicago and a group of aides.</p>
Chicago Man Charged With Mailing HIV-Tainted Blood To Obama
<p>A Chicago man is in custody, accused of mailing what he claimed was his HIV-tainted blood to Barack Obama. The package contained the suspect’s photo and return address.</p> <p>A criminal complaint says 27-year-old Saad Hussein faces two counts of sending “nonmailable articles.”</p> <p>Federal prosecutors in Springfield filed the complaint Jan. 9. The complaint recently was reported by several newspapers.</p> <p>Hussein told investigators he cut himself with a razor so he could bleed on the letter. The package was mailed Dec. 27 to a state office in Springfield and addressed to Obama, then president-elect.</p> <p>A test identified a substance found in the mailing as a drink mix.</p> <p>Hussein is jailed in Chicago. It’s not immediately clear if he has legal representation.<br />
</p>
