Ross Part I: Dennis Ross to manage diplomacy with Iran?

Via Arabic Media Shack, Dennis Ross has been selected as the envoy to Iran. Why the passive voice? Because I'm uncertain who chose Ross, but, if the speculation is accurate, he will report to H Dawg and not the President, so it's likely that this is Clinton's insistence. Ross adopted a hard line stance recently, which also popped up in his Newsweek comments in Zakaria's forum. His column pointed out the necessity of direct talks, which is correct, but past statements and his concluding comments point to the option of bombing Iran as a very real likelihood.

I agree that Iran shouldn't get the bomb, and the US should reduce, in drastic fashion, its stockpiles. It's the biggest blight on human history: the ability to essentially destroy the world in less than an hour should two parties decide. That being said, the US isn't in the best position to attack Iran, and that shouldn't be considered the logical end of American policy if Iran doesn't snap to the American line quickly. Considering the already strained position we are in the region, nothing fosters good will like bombing a smaller state. And an attack on Iran doesn't mean that Khomeini or his successor will sit penitently in the corner waiting to curry favor with the US or its Saudi and Gulf allies. And if the US or whomever didn't wipe out the nuclear program, it would be a major strategic blunder.

I don't think there's an easy policy answer. But continuing a hawkish line with a country that already feels threatened, may or may not produce the desired results. Accepting the US' weakened stance is prerequisite to diplomacy with Iran. (What will we do with trillion dollar deficits? Countries and empires have been ruined by less.)

Bipartisan "Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development"
Newsweek