Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Petraeus vs. Ross? via by admin on 1/8/09
Back in July, I wrote a post on this blog with the title, “Is Petraeus
Preparing to Betray the Neo-Cons?” in which I suggested that, given his
expanded geographical jurisdiction as CentCom commander, Gen. David
Petraeus, like the Joint Chiefs (and candidate Barack Obama for that
matter) at the time, would soon see Afghanistan/Pakistan as the
“central front on the war on terror” and thus develop a sense of
urgency about diverting more U.S. military and related resources from
Iraq to Southwest Asia. At that time, neo-cons like Fred Kagan and Max
Boot were arguing that Iraq was far more important than Afghanistan and
that any diversion of troops eastward could have catastrophic
geo-political consequences for the U.S. position in the Gulf and the
Middle East.

Since then, of course, Petraeus has occasionally noted the necessity of
a regional approach in dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan, one that
would include India to the east, the “Stans” to the north, and Iran to
the west, but he has never been as explicit about common U.S. and
Iranian interests in the region as he was today in a presentation to
the U.S. Institute of Peace (sponsored, incidentally, by Lockheed
Martin and Raytheon, as well as McDonalds and Coca-Cola). Despite
evidence that Tehran has provided some weapons to anti-NATO forces in
Afghanistan, he noted, Iran doesn’t “want …to see Afghanistan in the
grip of ultra-fundamentalist extremist Sunni forces. Nor do they want
to see the narcotics problem get worse. In fact, they want to see it
reduced; it’s a huge issue in Iran,” he said, noting again that Iran,
like India, could be critical to stabilizing Afghanistan.

Petraeus’ appreciation for the importance of bringing Iran into a
regional effort to stabilize Afghanistan — he spoke shortly after
former UN Special Envoy on Afghanistan Ibrahim Brahimi told the same
conference that Iran was “second perhaps in influence to Pakistan” in
Afghanistan and would not hesitate to create problems if it felt its
interests there were threatened — may, of course, lead him into
conflict not only with the neo-conservatives (as I suggested back in
July), but, more importantly, with Dennis Ross and his backers within
the Obama administration. Ross, who, according to numerous reports now,
appears certain to be made special envoy on all matters pertaining to
Iran (and possibly the entire Middle East) has even less expertise on
Afghanistan and Southwest Asia than he does on the Islamic Republic.
Moreover, his Israel-centric worldview (in which Iran, rather than al
Qaeda, represents the greatest regional threat to both the U.S. and
Israel) is almost certain to clash with Petraeus’ (and the Pentagon’s)
view that Iran’s cooperation — or at least acquiescence — is critical
to stabilizing Afghanistan and ultimately Pakistan as well. In other
words, a serious conflict is likely to develop between those, like
Ross, who see Iran as the greatest threat to U.S. interests and Israel
in the region defined as the “Middle East”) and those who believe that
al Qaeda and its allies in “Southwest Asia” represent the greatest
immediate threat to U.S. security.

Of course, Richard Holbrooke, who will be special envoy on
Afghanistan/Pakistan (and India in parenthesis, according to the latest
news), generally shares Ross’s views on Iran — they are co-founders,
after all, with James Woolsey and Fouad Ajami of a group called United
Against Nuclear) Iran; see this Wall Street Journal op-ed, for example
— and may be expected to back him up in inter-agency debates about how
confrontational a policy Obama should pursue toward Iran. But I think
Petraeus and the military will have some pretty strong views about how
well-positioned Tehran is to make life much more difficult for the U.S.
in both Afghanistan and even in Pakistan, not to mention Iraq — and how
much easier it could be if some sort of a “grand bargain” — even one
that recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium under strict
international inspection — with the Islamic Republic could be forged.
Perhaps, if things really went well, Iran could even offer NATO a
desperately needed new and inexpensive supply route for its troops in

Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites

Reply via email to