• commentary
  • THURSDAY JANUARY 18 2007 3:00 PM

Iranian Diplomatic Offer to US Rejected - in 2003

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Iran, US, Colin Powell, Bush

Bush's latest effort to drum up support for the war in Iraq contained serious overtones of hostility against Iran, axis-of-evil member and favorite whipping boy of the administration. Later attacks on an Iranian consulate in Iraq suggested that the administration may be preparing more overt military actions against Iran, especially given the political backdrop of last summer, where a US warning to stop development of their nuclear program was ignored by a defiant Iranian government. The complaints against Iran by the Bush administration include their support of foreign terrorism, attempts to destabilize Iraq and further pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of treaty obligations. The real question is, if the US could have prevented this situation from ever occurring, would they have? Apparently not.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.

In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion.

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.


Which raises the rather important question: "What exactly does Bush want Iran to do?" All of this took place in 2003, when Mohammed Khatami, the moderate Reform party president was still in office in Iran, it wasn't until 2005 when the more radical and inflammatory Ahmadinejad was elected. So what was the problem? Especially considering that Colin Powell's office seemed to support the idea, and a US-friendly Iran would have been a major stabilizing force in the region, in addition to helping out considerably with Iraq.

Without full details of what was proposed in the diplomatic offer it's difficult to say exactly why the offer was rejected, but at least on the surface it would appear that the stubborn diplomacy of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush ruined a chance to defuse what is rapidly becoming a worrisome situation between Iran and Middle East.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JAN 18, 2007 03:07 PM

Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

JAN 18, 2007 03:18 PM

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Oh yes, that is all it was. Just some silly boyish over confidence.

Kennedy's mistakes with Cuba had to do with buying into a left over Eisenhower/CIA agenda. Bush's had to do with having a hidden one.

Bastardo

Bastardo

Boston, MA
January 2005

JAN 18, 2007 03:22 PM

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Uh, where was this printed before? I must have missed it.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JAN 18, 2007 03:39 PM

I will look, I need to find it but I heard about the Iranian letter a while ago.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16411

It was also in the news on tv which is where I first heard about it.

Nick, a missed opportunity is a missed opportunity. Don't read too much into that. People in power who have power tend to think they are stronger than they are or that they will always have that level of power. Thats more what I was trying to say.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JAN 18, 2007 04:31 PM

legionnaire said:
Which raises the rather important question: "What exactly does Bush want Iran to do?"



Bush wants Iran to be an external enemy he can "understand" and present in national terms.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JAN 18, 2007 04:32 PM

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Whoa... are you saying that involvement in Iraq has reduced American power?

I mean, that's obvious to me, but I'm surprised to hear it from you.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

JAN 18, 2007 04:34 PM

oyaji said:
It's all part of our grand strategy to bring victory to our smoldering corpses.


Ew.

WADO

WADO

Brooklyn, NY
March 2006

JAN 18, 2007 04:42 PM

You know what helps in a situation like this, a map. Your homework is to go home and memorize the exact relation of Iran geographically to oh, lets say, Iraq, and um, Afghanistan.

Once you have committed this to memory, review "Pincer Attack".

Westley

Westley

Vatican City
April 2004

JAN 18, 2007 04:54 PM

The_Bastard said:

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Uh, where was this printed before? I must have missed it.


I seem to recall reading about it here.

waxangel

waxangel

Baltimore, MD
May 2003

JAN 18, 2007 05:03 PM

The perception of a hostile Iran (what would the Axis of Evil be without one?) is necessary for this administration's nationalistic, us (good Christians) vs. them (eeeevvvviiillllllll Muslims) mentality. Diplomacy? Not when you're in the pocket of companies like Honeywell/Halliburton, who stand to profit dramatically from non-stop war and access to Iranian oilfields.

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

JAN 18, 2007 05:09 PM

Repatriating the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq should have been a bit of an obstacle, although something tells me Cheney didn't have their interests in mind. They're an odd bunch, sort of listed as a terrorist group without having done anything for years. Last I saw of them they were doing some kind of bizarre 'Riverdance' event. Handing them over to the Iranians would not have been a proud moment.

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

JAN 18, 2007 05:19 PM

NickFaust said:

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Oh yes, that is all it was. Just some silly boyish over confidence.

Kennedy's mistakes with Cuba had to do with buying into a left over Eisenhower/CIA agenda. Bush's had to do with having a hidden one.



not to mention getting bullied around by Khruschev and a severe case of "shit or get off the pot" defeciency.


I can see where Bush and Co. would have been highly skeptical of Iran's intention to actually stick to the agreement. and it's very like the State Dept to want to try the diplomatic route. I think they should have gone for it, they certainly wouldn't have been gambling away anything, and could have reinstated the sanctions if Ahmadinejad was elected.

basically, I don't think it would have come to anything if they had gone with it, but they shoud have given it a chance anyway.

JekyllAndHyde

JekyllAndHyde

Austin, TX
April 2005

JAN 18, 2007 05:29 PM

War is peace. It wouldn't do for a potential threat to be neutralized peacefully; people might get the wrong idea that they shouldn't be afraid.

legionnaire

legionnaire

Belgium
November 2003

JAN 18, 2007 06:54 PM

Volkov said:

NickFaust said:

Colinism said:
Yeah this is old news. back then we were in a position of power and figured we could dictate the terms. Kennedy made the same mistake with Cuba. smile



Oh yes, that is all it was. Just some silly boyish over confidence.

Kennedy's mistakes with Cuba had to do with buying into a left over Eisenhower/CIA agenda. Bush's had to do with having a hidden one.



not to mention getting bullied around by Khruschev and a severe case of "shit or get off the pot" defeciency.


I can see where Bush and Co. would have been highly skeptical of Iran's intention to actually stick to the agreement. and it's very like the State Dept to want to try the diplomatic route. I think they should have gone for it, they certainly wouldn't have been gambling away anything, and could have reinstated the sanctions if Ahmadinejad was elected.

basically, I don't think it would have come to anything if they had gone with it, but they shoud have given it a chance anyway.



That's pretty much how I feel - given Iran's history I think any offer would have to be taken with a grain of salt, but like you said, there was really nothing at all to lose and so much to gain by at least giving it a try.

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

JAN 18, 2007 06:58 PM

oyaji said:
The Mujahedeen-e Khalq have staged minor actions in Iran (particularly in Tehran) pretty much continuously. It doesn't get much play in the States, but every once in a while they shoot a few mortars at a random government building in Tehran. Not exactly a huge threat, but they are still active on some limited basis.


I thought they stopped doing that sort of thing around 1999. Disbanding them in Iraq seems called for though. Arrests made, as local laws allow. Handing thousands of people over the tender mercies of the Iranian government? Distasteful in the extreme.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews