What keeps Dennis Ross (and President Obama?) awake at night

 I live-blogged Dennis Ross’ first post-Obama administration talk today. My takeaway, in a brief, is as follows:

The greatest danger posed by a nuclear Iran would be the increased likelihood of a Middle East nuclear war, according to Dennis Ross, who just retired as the White House’s top Iran policy official.

"If Iran has nuclear weapons, the potential for nuclear war in the Middle East goes up dramatically," Ross said during his first post-Obama administration address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The danger, Ross said, lies in the complete lack of communication between Israel and Iran, as opposed to open lines between earlier nuclear antagonists, like the United States and the Soviet Union.

"You are not going to have a stable situation where anyone can feel that they are going to wait," he said. "If there is the slightest indication that Iran is changing its readiness, can Israel wait? … The potential for miscalculation would be enormous."

Now, an opinion, a prediction, an analysis, especially by a private citizen, is usually not news.

But Ross’ expressed fear about the likelihood of nuclear war should Iran achieve nuclear weapon status struck as me remarkable, and worthy of singling out.

He was until just weeks ago the top Iran official at the White House.

[[READMORE]]

This scenario, apparently, is what keeps up at night the people who have the access to some of the world’s best intelligence, and who daily canvas regional leaders for their thoughts and fears.

That canvassing goes double for Israel.

Ross seemed to suggest that the rest of us weren’t really getting it.

It’s true, I can’t remember seeing the dangers of a nuclear Iran cast quite the way he put it..

There are those who argue that a nuclear Iran could be contained, something Ross rejected.

There are those who argue that a nuclear weapon would be an irresistible trigger for millennialists seeking to bring about the emergence of the hidden Imam.

Ross did not address this scenario, but others have made the case that it depends too much  on the delusions of a sole madman — and Iran, while oppressive and theocratic, is more a conglomeration of competing and self-interested factions. That makes the "crazy guy with a red button" script much less likely.

And there are those who argue that the umbrella a nuclear weapon would give Iran is the real danger; Iran would exercise its aggression against its neighbors and its terrorist proxies with much increased facility.

Ross acknowledges this argument as valid, but said it missed the point.

It’s the "potential for miscalculation" that gives him the jitters.

This may be why he and others keep repeating that the United States will step in with force, if necessary.

Back to my brief:

Ross said President Obama was committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"The administration prides itself on a certain reality that it does what it says," he said, referring to Obama’s making good on his promise to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

Regarding Iran, Ross said, when Obama "says all options remain on the table, it doesn’t mean that force is his first choice, but it means that that’s an option that he intends to exercise."

Incidentally, an old friend, seeing me set up my laptop this afternoon, told me Ross would not make news. "He’s too nuanced."

This was meant as an affectionate dig, and I’ve teased Ross about his circumlocutory style in the past.

But the value of nuance is that it embraces real thought — and when a nuanced interlocutor goes all blunt, as Ross did today, it’s worth sitting up and listening.