Customer Reviews

Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

If you are interested in "Finding a new direction for America in the Middle East" (the sub-title of this book), you won't find it in this book. The so-called "new direction" is almost indistinguishable from the old direction, in the last years of the Bush Administration - which led to the present mess.

Dennis Ross and David Makovsky were both staff members of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of AIPAC (the America - Israel Public Affairs Committee) the very powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. Their book defines Middle East policy issues as supporters of Israel's policies would like to see them defined.

The book presents Middle East issues from an exclusively Jewish viewpoint. Nearly half of the book, up to page 123, mainly presents an extensive history of the US-Israel relationship from 1948 to the present, including detailed presentations of the views of Israel's supporters in the US government. In contrast, while three chapters (Chapters 7,8,9) are devoted to Iran, Ross and Makovsky make no attempt to study or describe the political history of Iran or its relationship with the US. Iran's `Islamist Revolution of 1979' which expelled the Shah of Iran, receives just that two-word description `Islamist Revolution' - with no attempt to explore or describe what forces were at work. The pivotal 1953 coup, engineered by the US Central Intelligence Agency, which overthrew Iran's government headed by Mohammed Mossadeq, is not even mentioned (read All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer). Politics in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria receive not a word.

Amazingly, Ross and Makovsky do not even mention the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, in which the US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. The relationship between the US and Iran since the 1979 revolution in Iran, or since the 1953 US-supported coup, is not discussed or even mentioned. The origin and causes of the present hostility between the US and Iran are left totally unexplained.

Ross and Makovsky's implication is that to understand Middle East issues, the US-Israeli relationship should be studied in the greatest detail; for all other Middle Eastern countries, their history and politics are irrelevant. All that matters is how they relate to Israel at this moment.

If this book presents the best available US thinking on Iran, the future looks bleak. Israel's preferred course with Iran would be to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities - and count on the US to bail it out from any unforeseen consequences. But as von Clausewitz remarked 200 years ago, wars always develop in ways which are unforeseen (Vietnam, Iraq are recent examples).

Much of the book is devoted to attacking the "linkage" theory, which they attack by first presenting it in a ridiculous form (a common rhetorical trick in politics): "the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away." Of course, there are differences between Middle Eastern states unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Israeli's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza underlies the fact that 90 percent or more of the populations of Moslem countries have a negative view of the United States and are hostile to Israel. Their governments cannot ignore such views. When Israel complained in 2009 that neighboring Arab countries treat it as a pariah, not allowing Israeli trade missions in their countries, or permitting flights by Israeli airlines in their airspace, the US proposed in 2009 (after this book appeared) that Arab countries break the ice with Israel by making such conciliatory gestures. Netanyahu, on the other hand, refused to halt expansion of Israeli settlements. Thereupon, Saudi Arabia (with close economic ties to the US) immediately declined to make any conciliatory moves to Israel.

Conveniently, this downplaying of the importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict justifies the Netanyahu government's refusal (supported by American Jewish organizations) to halt expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This has put Israel in conflict with the Obama Administration, and is now blocking any peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. But in Ross and Makovsky's book, the issue of settlements is not even mentioned!

The final chapter, `A New Realism for U.S. Policy in the Middle East,' only 8 pages long, presents their recommendations. They are very, very skimpy, and vague. First, "we must start by seeing the region as it is" (who chooses not to?). We should help in "liberalizing regimes and helping reformers throughout the Middle East." How? Iranian opposition leaders in 2009 begged the US not to endorse them, since America's reputation in the Moslem world has become so toxic that US support would instantly discredit any Middle Eastern reformer. Finally, the US must not "walk away or leave Israel in the lurch" - as if anyone, from Douglas Feith to Mearsheimer, Walt or Zbigniew Brzezinski were proposing to do so.

Ross and Makovsky disparage the record of the Bush Administration in the Middle East. They have no choice: it was an obvious failure. Refusing to talk to Iran while hurling scarcely-camouflaged threats ("You're next!") has left the US with Iran's nuclear program to deal with. Bush's hands-off cowardice vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left Israel on even worse terms with its neighbors. But while disparaging Bush's record, Ross and Makovsky support the same goals and many of the same methods, and share the same conceptual framework.

Basing Middle East policy on the use of military force as George W. Bush did, deploying US military supremacy in Middle Eastern countries while ignoring political forces, cultural traditions and public opinion in every country except Israel, has been disastrous for the US. Enormously costly wars are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan under conditions where US military and technological supremacy give no advantage. This policy, to which Ross and Makovsky offer little alternative, has left the US militarily weakened and enormously weakened financially. It has been a disaster for the US national interest.

The only chapters of this book that concern me are those the authors have allocated to the current Iranian regime. For one thing, I am so happy that Obama's attempt to legitimize the murdering regime of Iran have failed solely due to the recent uprising of the Iranian people. But these authors have me worried more because they are the men who will shape the Iran policy in the next few years. (Hopefully Obama will be out of office by 2012).

Okay here is my beef with the Iran related chapters:

1-The authors had me until they came to discuss the so-called Iranian Fax message on pages 188-189. The author implies that the United States spurned a legitimate Iranian offer to settle all debts, so to speak, by striking a "grand bargain" and this offer supposedly came in 2003 via a Swiss Diplomat named Tim Guldimann. The offer is often cited by the leftists as evidence that President Bush's administration recklessly flopped a legitimate opportunity to engage in meaningful dialog with Iran. But again, this is nonsense. As AEI's Iran expert Michael Rubin has explained (michaelrubindotcom) , the Guldimann memo was the work of a wishful thinking, freelancing, Western diplomat, and not a serious attempt by the Iranians to strike a deal. And guess who took that fax message to the US officials? A well-known Iranian regime agent named Trita Parsi whose organization is funded by the Iranian regime. So the authors lost credibility the moment they started discussing this fake grand bargain offer.

2- The authors want us to believe the Iranian regime is just like any other functioning government/state. The authors of this book fail to understand one thing: That the Iranian regime leadership/mullahs DO NOT care about the well-being of the Iranian people. They don't have the land of Iran on their list as something they'd like to protect. They consider ISLAM and their faith as something holy and more scared. This is a common belief among Iranian people (including those I know) that the Iranian regime acts as if it is an occupational army. To give you an example, I'd refer you to how they treat victims of natural disasters in Iran. The Iranian regime does not care about IRAN. Period! So how could you deter them if they don't care about that country? You can not deter bunch of radical Muslims whose top priority is to keep their Islamic faith intact.


3- I guess the authors have only found one label better than others to attack their critic: Neo-Cons. And this is what Left likes to do. They have mainly pointed at The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction Michael Ledeen. They do not attempt to refute what Dr. Ledeen has said in terms of his thoughts or policy suggestions. But the only thing authors do not in this book regarding their so-called Neo-Con critics is to tackle the policy suggestions made by the neo-cons. Why?

4- I understand that the main goal of the US govt should be to further its own interests in any possible way. This is what governments SHOULD do. That's why they are there. But what these authors propose in dealing with the current Iranian regime is way more expensive, costlier and more dangerous than any other method. Consider that what these authors propose (DIPLOMACY) fails. What will be left is DIRECT military intervention by the United States in Iran. Whereas if the United States help change the regime in Iran, the costs will be far lower. The job will be done by the Iranian people and not the US soldiers. Why would they not want to try the cheaper way? I hate to say this but it is in the nature of the left to come across as 'Imperialists'. It's either their way or highway. So let me make this clear: My understanding of this book was that if what the authors say fail, there will be direct US military intervention (either in offering deterrence or air strikes against nuke facilities). I still can not understand why regime change option is a bad option. Authors fail to explain this to me as a typical reader. They have not analyzed the possibilities that the removal of this regime can bring to the table. They want the status-quo and they are wrong to be for Status-quo. The benefits of regime change in Iran outweighs anything one can imagine. You could imagine the effect that a secular democratically elected Iranian government can have in the region especially for the Israelis and how it will weaken the Russians, Venezuelans, Syrians and other terrorist groups in the region. You can not deter a terrorist government. Can you?

5- What the authors have offered were tried in 1990s and from 2004 to 2008. It did not work. The US govt offered apology for 1953 incidents in Iran during the 2nd term of Clinton presidency. Pres Bush did not approach the Iranian regime in 2005-08 period the way he did in 2002-03 period. He was cautious and less aggressive. The United States offered all sorts of carrots to the regime in these periods and none worked. One wonders why? So why should the United States try failed approaches again? Should the authors not investigate the nature of the regime rather than blaming the US good intentions during those periods?

6- The Europeans have been negotiating with the regime for as long as one could possibly imagine. The Europeans are more important to the regime than the US is. Why? Because if we consider the trade an important tool of foreign policy, the EU holds more sway over the mullahs in that field. The amount of EU-Iran trade is far more than the amount of US-Iranian trade. They could offer anything to the Iranian regime to have them stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons/energy. They have failed. The authors do not realize that no amount of bargaining and negotiations will stop the dangerous agenda of the current Iranian regime. The Europeans offered airplane spare parts, economic incentives, technology and WTO invitation and so on. If the Iranian regime genuinely believed in advancing the quality of lives of its citizens and its own standing in the international community, it could have taken up on those offers, halts its nuke program and be reasonable. Mullahs have not done so. Why? I won't provide the answer but the authors did not provide the answers either. Again why not?

7- The authors constantly refer the reader to dubious Iran experts like Ray Takeyh Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs who is a very suspicious individual in terms of his loyalties. Many in the Iranian community (iranianlobbydotcom) believes that individuals like him do not take their orders from where they should. Some point at his loyalties and how he is advancing the Iranian regime agenda within the American media or government. Why would the authors refer to such sources whose fairness is in question by so many people? Then there are names like Mahdi Khalaji, Trita Parsi, Karim Sadjadpour... etc. These individuals have little or no credibility among serious Iran experts. They have been exposed for who they really are. It's important that readers know who these guy work for.

There are so many points to make about this terrible book. But a few things are clear to me. The failed ideas of 1990s that led to terrorist attacks of September 11th are back again and those who are put in charge of Iran policy KNOW NOTHING about Iran personally. They have never been to Iran. They don't speak the language and those who advise them are dubious characters like the ones I mentioned above. The authors suggest that Neo-Conservatives suffer from wishful thinking and they see the region as they wish. It's not the case. The authors who happen to be REALISTS suffer from this illness. They want to shape the region the way they want and they CAN'T see the region for what it really is. They want us to believe that the Iranian regime is just like any other nation-state. Well, they are wrong. They've been proven wrong.

Again, I am so happy that Obama's effort to legitimize the current Iranian regime has failed and I hope the effort to negotiate with the Iranian regime fails even more. The Iranian people deserve to be free and the best thing people like Dennis Ross, Hilary Clinton or 0bama can do is to leave us alone. We don't need their help (since they offer no help) and we demand that they stop trying to legitimize our oppressors.

I found this book very frustrating. Throughout the book, I felt as though Ross and Makovsky are largely on a soapbox about how they are essentially better informed and 'get it' while neo-cons and realists are both out of touch and misguided. However, the authors base their arguments on very narrow quotes and then selectively interpret/apply such quotes to advance their agenda. By taking quotes out of context, it conveniently positions the authors to argue that neither side 'gets it' because -- wait for it -- they ignore context. Can anyone else smell the hypocrisy in the argument? It's quite laughable.

I'm sure the targets of his criticism -- such as Walt/Mearsheimer -- would take issue with the authors for poorly representing their positions, though I haven't done research to find out whether they have responded to the book. Ross and Makovsky can't honestly defend their positions/solutions as more balanced/effective without providing the readers with a fairer view of those they criticize.

Ross and Makovsky do offer some substantive and valuable historical background and analysis. However, their tone and approach to writing the book was done in a very convenient way so as to come out looking more clever than everyone else. If you keep this in mind while reading it, you will be better off.

Why has the U.S. consistently failed to achieve peace in the Middle East? According to the authors, it is because we have repeatedly fallen for myths about the region. These include: 1)Iran's religious leadership is immune from diplomatic and economic pressures, 2)Israeli-Palestinian peace is key to solving all the Middle East problems, and 3)Regime change is prerequisite for peace and democracy.

The authors early on point out that Middle-East diplomacy must be addressed in the larger context of China, Russia (seeking a role as counterweight to the U.S.?, nervous about its own Muslim inhabitants), and Global Warming (the Middle East can undercut initiatives if they lower prices).

Clearly, the preeminent threat of our time is that radical Islamists may get their hands on a nuclear weapon. In addition, say the authors, it remains unlikely that Islamists extremists who embrace suicide bombing are deterrable. While perhaps true, downgrading the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from top priority in the context of terrorism seems extremely dangerous, given Bin Laden and others listing it as a prime grievance. On the other hand, the authors do make the case that this 60-year-old conflict is not the answer to every Mid-East problem - eg. the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), and Gulf War I and II had no connection to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

"The main opponents of Arab-Israeli peace . . . primarily the Islamists" is a statement that suggests a serious bias on the author's part - no documentation was given. Though the book repeatedly slams Bush II policies in the area, this statement creates wonder that the authors would have done better. Further, at no point do they depict Israelis as a source of problems - even their continual building of settlements.

Moving on to Iran, the authors begin stating that U.S. problems with Iran go back many years . . . starting with the 1979 revolution - oblivious to the U.S. role in overthrowing the elected Iranian government to protect U.S. and British oil interests. Regardless, the current situation is depicted from both the viewpoints of "engagers," and "regime changers." Again, solutions are muddled by Russia, China, and the 2007 NIE findings on Iran's nuclear program. Ross/Makovsky see sanctions as having impact - prices of affected goods have risen 50%, and possibly this underlies the dissidents' energy in the latest election. On the other hand, the book should have done a better job of examining the problems associated with Iran's declining production - the material was unclear what the root causes and cures are.

Finally, "Myths, Illusions, and Peace" probably makes its greatest contribution regarding the topic of Israel's value to the U.S. Other sources conclude that Israel has no positive value whatsoever; Ross/Makovsky point out that Israel has protected Jordan vs. Syria, and can be seen as a counterweight to Iran, Hamas, and Hizbollah. The latter points, however, were not explicated.

In the last decade, a very unfortunate book came out by Mearsheimer and Walt, the infamous "Israel Lobby" book, which was mostly panned by reputable critics. Many of the preconceived notions in the book continued to be perpetrated, despite the fact neither Mearsheimer and Walt ever were diplomats in the ME or had much to do with it.

Well the rebuttal to that book, and the neo-conservative's generally equally false views, has come! Dennis Ross and David Makovsky do a stunning job laying out the "realist" and "neo-con" arguments, and rebutting them.

The most important debunking, in this book, is of course on the "realists." The linkage myth is one that has plagued too many supposed academics, even tho it has proven to be false. Ross and Makovsky systemically smash that myth, citing events in which US leaders tried to placate Arabs and Islamists by not being as friendly to Israel. And as the Eisenhower example in 1956 shows, this approach is a miserable failure. I believe this is important because to think that Israel hurts us in the ME, while somewhat intuitive, is in fact misguided and incorrect. Other myths include how realists think that the US can dictate peace, or that Israel is the problem, which Ross and Makovsky show, conflicts with reality, by exposing us to the nuance Mearshemier, Walt, and their supporters know not. They also tear apart the idea that we can negotiate with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran without preconditions by virture that these guys have proven themselves as not pragmatists, but sheer ideologues, despite what Brzezinski and Carter and Walt would say. Zinging the idea of living with a nuclear Iran also really was informative, because when one looks at it, Iran would likely not act as rational as the USSR/China because of their apocalyptic musings and the fact that the Revolutionary Guards, a state-within-a-state, at times has answered to no one and broken off from what the government's position was, cited in the Rev. Guards' actions during the '80s and early '90s, opposed to how the Communist Parties of the USSR/China had a clear monopoly over their militaries. The book destroys the "realist" ideas that Israel is a burden, when the fact it is not only a massive ally to the US, but inadvertently to other Arab regimes, almost ironically.


It also debunks neo-con ideas, like thinking regime change is the only answer, and on the more important issues on how to push democracy. While the neo-cons have great principle, they failed to apply it well, or take note about social development, wealth creation, or state infrastructure, which are necessary to actually build a democracy. This explains in Iraq why it failed, tho in no small part thanks to Ahmad's meddling there.

There are two points where I disagree with the authors. I think they are a little optimistic on the peace process. I truly think the only reason Arafat didn't accept 2000 was because he wouldn't accept a Jewish state. But I do think for PR purposes, we must try, tho on better terms to Israel, who are the moral and winning party. I also wish they addressed the problems within Islam as practiced today. But they did mention the importance of challenging aggressive Islamist jihadism.

A spectacular read in history and strategic politics in the most complicated region in the world, politically. In particular, I enjoyed seeing smashed to pieces the most was the IRA comparison to Hamas and Hezbollah. I think this book does a great job at hitting the neo-cons, and I was shocked Bush didn't react to the 2003 letter, especially before Ahmad came in. But I am equally amazed at how easily the more dangerous Mearsheimer/Walt ideology was torn to pieces. I say it is more dangerous because of the political pendulum effect, and ironically, the same administration for which Ross works, is practicing "realism." But I believe Ross is the guy keeping it from going off the edge. The Obama administration right now, seems to be trying to be "contra-Bush," but to too much of a degree, and this seems to be pressuring only Israel, not the Arabs. But I have faith that Dennis Ross is in the administration, especially after his spectacular book, that they will buck up! He shows both the faults of both schools, yet manages to divorce the Israel-Palestinian/Arab peace process from either school, and show it for what it is: not completely irrelevant to peace in the ME, but more importantly, not nearly at all the cause and answer to all the problems in the Middle East.

A must read to understand the politics of the Middle East, and the US/Israel role. It shows that dogma is not the way to view the ME like neo-cons, but interests and power surely do not guide everything, as the "realists" say. It is all of those things PLUS values and ideology. It lays out a new direction, that takes neither the rigid neo-conservative ways, nor follows the closed minded simplistic "realist" ways. Nothing is simple, except that this book is a must read, written by two experienced men in the field of Middle East policy.

In the Middle East there are three main problems: Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Taliban and al-Qaeda in those two countries, Iran and their nuclear program, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The authors totally ignore the first one, but Afghanistan and Pakistan right now is the main foreign policy headache for President Obama. So to me the book was really incomplete. In the Index the words Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Taliban were not even to be found. It's hard for me to imagine a book on the Middle East without those words in the Index. Maybe the authors don't see Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the Middle East, that only the Arab countries are the Middle East, if so that is incorrect. Or perhaps they have no solution for Afghanistan. The Obama White House is trying to find a way for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan without the Karzai government falling and the Taliban taking over like it did pre-9/11 when the Taliban let al-Qaeda establish headquarters in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is as big a headache for Obama as Iran is, yet the authors mention nothing on that in their book which I found disappointing.

It is striking how superficial this book is! With all due respect to the authors, I find the theories provided by this book about the causes and nature of the Arab-Israel conflict to be ridiculous and revealing of the world of fantasy the writers seem to live in. The Arab-Israel conflict is a real problem with real causes and implications that goes far beyond political maneuvering.

A balanced and objective analysis of the conflict should consider the Arab perspective. The following is my opinion which, I believe, represent how ordinary Arabs (not Arab governments) look at the Arab-Israel conflict:

The truth is simple. Western Colonial powers created and supported Israel to serve purely Western interests. Among those Western interests is to prevent the emergence of any powerful pan-Arab state or alliance that might threaten Western interests in access and control of the natural resources of the area, and the strategic geographical importance of the region. The Arab region extending from Morocco on the Atlantic ocean in the west to the Persian gulf in the east, and from the Turkish border in the north to the Arabian sea in the south, has so much in common culturally and historically to make it a candidate for a formidable economical and political regional superpower. Planting the foreign body of Israel in the heart of the Arab area can and does pre-empt such a possibility. On the other hand, the West found in the creation of Israel a way of alleviating the guilt of the shameful persecution of Jews at the hands of European powers.

The Arab-Israel conflict is not about public opinion or emotions stirred by the media or the current Arab governments. It is a real conflict that defied resolution for more than 60 years so far. It is about a prmeditated agression on the innocent Palestinian people who were systematically dislocated, forced into fleeing the ethnic cleansing and massacres committed by Israeli forces in the months leading to the 1948 declaration of Israel as a state (See the well-documented book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by the Israeli writer Ilan Pappe). This is the root cause of the problem.

Unfortunately, the misguided and ill-advised policies of the Western governments, particulary the United States have contributed to the deterioration of the Middle East and rendered that area extremely volatile and explosive. In addition to the hefty cost of lost lives and money incurred by the United States, there is the huge loss of reputation and moral standing. Not only the Middle East has suffered but increasingly the rest of world is paying the price of such policies.

As a peace-loving Palestinian who was kicked out of his home and country in 1948, I sincerely believe that peace shall remain an illusion until and unless the Palesinian people's basic unalienable rights of return to their homeland and reparation for their enormous losses and suffering are respected and enforced. Then, I envisage a truly democratic state where Palestinians, Israelis, of all creeds and colors can live peacefully together as they have done in that area for centuries. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Palestinians have always lived peacefully together in Palestine. That harmony has been disturbed or disrupted only at the time of foreign invasion or intervention.

I hope that the public opinion of people on all sides will come to this logical, moral, and fair conclusion so that no more blood will be shed, and no more billions of Dollars be wasted in supporting one side at the expense of the victim, the Palestinian people.

Let us all work for, and implement, justice. A lasting peace will be the reward.

A highly informative, well-balanced book by authors with intimate knowledge and at-hand experience. Highly recommended, although not always easy reading.

Every year, we get treated to a torrent of banal, predictable books about the Middle East. Occasionally one floats above the flotsam to offer not only real insight, but genuine thoughtful recommendations on new paths the United States might pursue in its diplomacy with that chaotic region. "Myths, Illusions, & Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" is fortunately in that rare second category.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, among America's most seasoned diplomats, and co-author David Markovsky successfully demolish many fictions on which our Mideast diplomacy is often based. Neocons imagine that negotiating with autocrats is by definition fruitless and that the seeds of democracy wait to bloom beneath every Arab street, needing only a little fertilizer. Their opponents, so-called "Realists," claim that ideology and religion are just veneers for power politics and that America's "rational" calculus is universal and axiomatic. Both cling to the specious notion that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of all the regions woes and conflicts -- despite the countless wars, coups, massacres, as well as retarded economic and political development among the Arab states which have nothing to do with Israel. Likewise, members of both of these schools over emphasize America's centrality in the region, imagining every action a reaction to some US policy in the narrow way every event in the Cold War was seen as byproduct of that conflict.

Yet beyond this books careful historical analysis, the authors build on the shards of past misguided policies to offer new and practical way to precede that could serve as a roadmap for the Obama administration. Iran, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Islamic extremists, continue to be among our nation's most vexing foreign policy challenges. Ross and Markovsky discuss unused diplomatic tools that could be brought to bear on Iran, ways to strengthen the hands of moderate forces in the regions, and strategies to strength civil society among the regions autocratic regimes to lay the foundation for growth and future freedom.

Though occasionally "Myths, Illusions, & Peace" reads like a long, imploring memo to the state department - and they would do well to study it -- serious students of America's role in this crucial region will not be dissuaded by its density. Indeed they will find it a rich and thought provoking text that they will want to consult again and again.

What you thought you knew about peace-making in the Middle East is probably not true. Ross and Makovsky set out to rebut the "myths and illusions" of both the neo-conservatives and the "realists," two of the most influential schools of thought, and they succeed.

Simplistically, one might have thought that the neo-conservatives, many of whom supported the war in Iraq and many of whom advocate regime change in Iran, are "pro-Israel," and that the "realists" are anti-Israel. Ross and Makovsky make a convincing case that the policies advocated by both groups are not in the interest of either Israel or the United States.

The authors write from decades of experience and from a deep knowledge of the region and of all the key players. They argue that the eight years of the Bush administration brought confusion, indecision, and some downright incompetence when it came to Iran policy and to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. They also launch a detailed rebuttal of the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that Israel is now a strategic liability to the United States, showing convincingly in my view that Israel is a strategic asset.

Ross and Makovsky avoid cliches and bring a fresh approach to long-debated questions. They write clearly and concisely and without jargon. Ross is back in government now, and I certainly hope that his clear-eyed proposals will hold sway in the Obama administration. I highly recommend this book.