Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ObieX · 05-12-2006, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

But, you don't have to worry. In the western world, people don't think with their brains anymore, they think with their gut. This letter will be rejected for what it will make it's rejectors feel, rather than the ideas it presents.

I'd have to agree. This seems to be exactly the case. Bush puts on his "unhappy" face and the letter flies into the garbage.

The letter brought up a lot of good points. I think what was said can be agreed with by me (except of course the destruction of Israel.. tho there were also good points about the UN resolutions being vetoed).

I think not agreeing with everything said because the guy believes in God and tries to make his points through his belief is a little... childish. He seems to want things like peace the non-blowing up of young children and families. Disagreeing with those things (even when yuo agree with them) just because he says its stuff God also wants doesn't make any logical sense.

To be honewst i think he was trying to put foward the point that he isn't trying to make nukes and is instead doing things for peace. While he may not have come out and said it.. i think it was made pretty clear. He doesn't want to be like Bush.. killing thousands and thousands of people.. the lies.. the fear. He wants peace.

For those who said he doesn't care what the world thinks about him i think you may need to reread. He wrote atleast 1 paragraph about how history views people long after their presidency/regime is over. MOST of his message is about how the world views the US and stuff liek that. If you ask me he is very interested in what others think.

rainheart · 05-12-2006, 03:18 AM

To be fair, I'm making a sweeping and unfair generalization to say that only the western world does it. That's complete bullshit and I admit that. But, frankly, the consequences from the people committing such an act here are really taking their toll, and although it would have to be controlled on a global scale, it would probably be best to start over here.

roachboy · 05-12-2006, 06:31 AM

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2438&l=1

links to the iran page(s) from the international crisis group--they provide an interesting, useful and short set of background papers on the situation that pits the americans and the iranians against each other at the moment.

this:

http://first.sipri.org/index.php

is to a much larger set of databases on the international arms trade, both governmental and private, which has been, is and will remain a central motor in crises like this. the data is extensive and sobering, though it requires a bit of thought to access (the link is to an interface).

the exchanges of "well this sounds like x [fill in the political position you do not like]" seems played out...the interpretations of this quite strange letter can only go so far without access to an expanded set of contexts...these contexts are not being given you on television or in the print press (in any systematic way), so maybe the above will help switch the terms of debate.

in general, you have the official positions of states on questions of armaments and you have the realities of the international arms trade on the other. the latter operates both within and at cross purposes with the former. you have parallel general scenarios in the context of nuclear weapons development programs.

the united states is the worlds largest armaments exporter--larger than all other countries combined. the us is involved heavily in the transfer of technologies related to nuclear power development, which is a preconidition for fabricated nuclear weapons.

the general set-up----wherein your have state and private suppliers selling whatever they can to whomever they can----creates obvious problems of control.
this makes state policies into little more than a set of shifting boundary conditions within international markets for weapons that exceed the control of states. this is a system that we have created, in general terms, and if you are worried about the consequences of it, the problem lay in the nature of the international arms trade itself--in the assumption that private firms should be allowed to seel weaspons systems direct, say....but the nature and extent of such markets is quite complex and requires more information than messageboards usually can accomodate to be discussed coherently. the above database can give access to information that coudl inform a more coherent discussion, one less predicated on illusions as to the roles of states within the trade and the relative importance of state actions/policies within that trade.

suffice it to say that, in the present context (which, btw the bush people did not invent) all problems of proliferation of weapon systems, conventional and not conventional, can be seen as the chickens coming home to roost.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Only if Bush chooses to read it that way, or more importantly chooses to sell it to us that way.

He is still trying to control us by his fear "policy."

Osama sent a similar letter before his announced holy war against the US.

I am curious, how many different ways do we need to be given ultimatums and death threats before we take it seriously?

Remeber when Iraq and Iran were at war in the 80's? Iran wanted to cripple all oil exports from the region and made threats against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We sided with Iraq in that war to tip the balance after Iran started acting on those threats by bombing oil tankers in shipping lanes. Iran never forgot our support of Iraq. They want revenge.

Without being too lengthy, I will connect the dots for you.

Iraq hates Iran and Iran hates Iraq.
Iraq invaded Iran.
Iran started winning and wanted to control the entire Middle East.
The US helped Iraq. The war ended. Iran was embarrassed. Iran adopts terrorist tactics against the west, plans revenge, want nuclear weapons.
Iraq invades Kuwait and wanted to control the entire Middle East.
The US helps Kuwait. Iraq is embarrassed. Iraq begins plans for revenge and supports terrorism, defys UN resolutions, wants nuclear weapons.
US invades Iraq and Afganastan. (Look at a map-Iran has Iraq to the west and Afganastan to the East). Iran would never support Iraq in a war. It is poor strategy to move on Iran without having Iraq under control.

What is next?

Resolution of the conflict with Iran. Iran knows it. Their terrorist President knows it. Every country in the Middle East knows it. Our military knows it (Remember the recent controversy about the "plan" to invade Iraq - we had plans for a very long time - the media is slow and the Democrats made it an issue dishonestly), Bush knows it, half of this country knows it, most of the world knows it, why don't the rest of you know it?

reconmike · 05-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President, I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established : Many thousands were killed in the process.

Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just from this part of His most excellent leader of the free nation of Iran's little letter, makes me believe he is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, and anyone who supports them.

But in a way he is right, we should allow the middle east to settle their own land disputes. So my thinking is we should allow Israel to expand their borders as much as they can.

And as for his carving out land theory, maybe he should look at a map from 100 or so years ago of a place called Persia and have him point out, Iraq as a nation, or maybe Saudi, hell even Iran as the borders are now.

cybersharp · 05-17-2006, 12:28 PM

Very interesting letter~ There where several good topics in it~ Very well laid out actualy ~ It was like a bash~reasoning~Sermon*

btw my keyboard is messed up< thats why this is allweird>

Elphaba · 05-24-2006, 08:48 AM

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush was a very serious offer to open direct discussions which the Bush hardliners chose to ignore.

WaPo

This is a subscription link. The text follows.

Quote:

Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program

By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Page A01

TEHRAN, May 23 -- Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.

Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."

Laylaz and several diplomats said senior Iranian officials have asked a multitude of intermediaries to pass word to Washington making clear their appetite for direct talks. He said Ali Larijani, chairman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, passed that message to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

Iranian officials made similar requests through Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Laylaz said. American intelligence analysts also say Larijani's urgent requests for meetings with senior officials in France and Germany appear to be part of a bid for dialogue with Washington.

"They've been desperate to do it," said a European diplomat in Tehran.

U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed the letter as a major overture, an appraisal shared by analysts and foreign diplomats resident in Iran. Bush administration officials, however, have dismissed the proposed opening as a tactical move.

The administration repeatedly has rejected talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002. Within hours of receiving Ahmadinejad's letter, Rice dismissed it as containing nothing new.

But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response.

Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Iranian analysts said Ahmadinejad's familiar list of grievances on Iraq, Israel and terrorism was designed largely for domestic consumption. CIA analysts and experts on Iran within the government said it also could be interpreted as an attempt to articulate points for possible discussion with Washington.

"There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA until last fall.

"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on," Pillar said. "We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."

Inside Iran, the letter effectively widened an opening toward the United States that began in March, with Larijani's unusually public acceptance of an American invitation to direct talks on the situation in neighboring Iraq. That acceptance provoked sharp criticism from hard-liners until it was publicly endorsed by Khamenei.

By contrast, Ahmadinejad's letter sparked lavish praise from perhaps the most conservative cleric in Iran's government, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who chairs the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's electoral process. Delivering the Friday sermon on May 12 in Tehran, Jannati called it "an extraordinary letter" and "an inspiration by God."

"The taboo is gone, for the first time when someone like Jannati endorses the message," said an Iranian political analyst who said he could not to be quoted by name because his employer had not authorized him to speak publicly.

Earlier attempts at outreach to Washington have been thwarted by conservatives. "The tradition is the hard-liners need American hostility," the analyst said. The most serious attempt was by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami.

"When Khatami tried to do it, the leader rejected it," said the European diplomat. "But I guess they're worried enough. People don't want sanctions. Domestically, it's a good move."

Indeed, by last week, a prominent member of Iran's conservative parliament made headlines proposing talks with members of Congress.

"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."

The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.

Laylaz also saw a second reason: Iran's nuclear program, which recently crossed a key threshold by enriching uranium.

"Now we have something to negotiate," Laylaz said. "The nuclear program of the regime has been successful, because five years ago nobody wanted to hear our voice."

Ordinary Iranians appear to approve of Ahmadinejad's overture. His letter remains at the top of the presidential Web site, http://www.president.ir .

"We have not had any relations for so many years, and Iran was always accused of being unwilling to talk," Masood Mohammadi, 23, said as he left Friday prayers last week. "Now Iran has taken the first step, and I hope the U.S. president replies in kind."

This is the second overture from Iran to engage with the administration in a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. I think it would be difficult at this juncture for the Bush hardliners to continue refusing direct talks with the Iranian leadership, unless the neocon policy toward Iran is something other than was has been stated. There will, however, be increased pressure upon the adminstration to engage in direct talks. We shall see.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush was a very serious offer to open direct discussions which the Bush hardliners chose to ignore.

This is the second overture from Iran to engage with the administration in a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.

How about Ahmadinejad picking up the phone and calling Bush.

Isn't that what you would do if you seriously wanted to talk to him?

The letter was not intended for Bush and was not intended to foster direct discussions. The letter was intended to get Muslims around the world to support Iran. The letter was intended to stir Bush haters in the US. The letter was the basis for a declaration of war if the US doesn't start doing thing the Ahmadinejad way.

I hope I am wrong. But realistically we all know the path we are on. For the Bush haters - the war won't happen while Bush is President, so you won't have him to blame. But, I hope you realize the dilemma we face.

Elphaba · 05-24-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about Ahmadinejad picking up the phone and calling Bush.

Isn't that what you would do if you seriously wanted to talk to him?

The letter was not intended for Bush and was not intended to foster direct discussions. The letter was intended to get Muslims around the world to support Iran. The letter was intended to stir Bush haters in the US. The letter was the basis for a declaration of war if the US doesn't start doing thing the Ahmadinejad way.

I hope I am wrong. But realistically we all know the path we are on. For the Bush haters - the war won't happen while Bush is President, so you won't have him to blame. But, I hope you realize the dilemma we face.

I have provided sources. Please provide yours, unless this is merely your personal opinion. Bush haters? I hope you realize how stuck you are in your ideology.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I have provided sources. Please provide yours, unless this is merely your personal opinion. Bush haters? I hope you realize how stuck you are in your ideology.

Provide sources for what? Above I simply made a logical inference (a sincere attempt for diplomacy would not involve a public letter but a direct contact) and asked you a question ( what would you do?).

Then I agreed with your original post:

Quote:

My initial thought is that Ahmadinejad is hoping to gain world sympathy for Iran, rather than offering diplomatic engagement to resolve the nuclear standoff. I need to read the letter more closely and give more thought to it.

Then I gave an added opinion based on emperical observation (Bush haters being stirred up). I don't have an citable source for this, but do I need one?

Then I gave an opinion about the intent of the letter (pretext for war). That is what the original post was seeking:

Quote:

I would like to discuss what each of us believes is the intent of this letter.

The last paragraph was clearly my "hope" and a statement of the obvious.

Your are 100% correct that I am "stuck" in my ideology. I look for my ideology to be challenged, that's why I participate in these discussions. So far nothing said has caused me to become un-stuck.

Thanks for trying to trivialize my positions

Elphaba · 05-24-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

How about Ahmadinejad picking up the phone and calling Bush.

Isn't that what you would do if you seriously wanted to talk to him?

If I have misjudged your meaning, then I would wish for a better understanding. If you believe I was trivializing your positions, it may be because I found your above statements unworthy of the intelligence I have seen in most of your posts. Please tell me that you know it is far more complicated than just "picking up the phone." Rhetorical banter has it's place, but it doesn't allow for hurt feelings if the strategy fails.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Please tell me that you know it is far more complicated than just "picking up the phone." Rhetorical banter has it's place, but it doesn't allow for hurt feelings if the strategy fails.

I don't know that it is more compicated than that.

Remember how the Cold War ended. Reagan and Gorbachav sat down in a meeting and talked. Prior to that the situation was hopeless with ugly public rhetoric from both sides. Phone calls where made, seeds planted, a meeting set up, a third party helping break the ice, BINGO, a new hope!

Oh and here is a cite:

Quote:

swissinfo: Is it correct to say that the meeting marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War?

Edouard Brunner: Yes, I think you could say that. Both men had convinced themselves that it was useless to go on like this. But on the other hand, they had constituencies at home that were not so easy to handle. Gorbachev had to convince his Politburo that he could do business with Reagan.

[The timing was good because] when Gorbachev came to power there was a ray of hope because for the first time we had a leader in the Soviet Union who was apparently ready to act in a decisive way as far as détente was concerned.

On the other side you had Reagan who was a hawk, but who was intelligent enough to see that he could perhaps put an end to the Cold War. And I think it was Margaret Thatcher who convinced Reagan that he could talk to Gorbachev. That is how it started in June [1985].

swissinfo: You personally met Reagan and Gorbachev. Did they get on as famously as we were led to believe?

E.B.: Our president Kurt Furgler insisted on having a one-on-one with Gorbachev and Reagan for one hour before the talks started. Apparently, at the beginning it was not so warm between them.

The first day, according to Edvard Shevardnadze, whom I met in Georgia, Gorbachev was ready to leave because he didn’t feel at ease with Reagan.

But I think Mrs Gorbachev and Shevardnadze convinced him [to stay]. So the talks went on and in the end they had a good meeting and apparently they liked each other so much that they met some months later in Reykjavik [Iceland].

swissinfo: What role did Switzerland, and you yourself, play in organising that meeting?

E.B.: I was approached by the American negotiator who was in Geneva for disarmament talks with the Soviets, to find out if we were ready to organise a meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev. We had to see to the security, to organise every detail – to find accommodation, meeting places, and so on. Let’s say we organised it in a non-political way.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissin...=1117480864000

Your tone suggests my "rhetoric" was foolish. Did I misread that?

Also, do you think indirect communication (letters in the media) is more effective than direct communication (picking up the phone)? If not, why are we on this point?

Don't you think Bush would pick-up if Ahmadinejad called? If not why not?

Again, you have not answered the question - Wouldn't you call Bush to see if you could prevent war if you were the leader of Iran?

roachboy · 05-25-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program

By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A01

TEHRAN, May 23 -- Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.

Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."

Laylaz and several diplomats said senior Iranian officials have asked a multitude of intermediaries to pass word to Washington making clear their appetite for direct talks. He said Ali Larijani, chairman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, passed that message to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

Iranian officials made similar requests through Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Laylaz said. American intelligence analysts also say Larijani's urgent requests for meetings with senior officials in France and Germany appear to be part of a bid for dialogue with Washington.

"They've been desperate to do it," said a European diplomat in Tehran.

U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed the letter as a major overture, an appraisal shared by analysts and foreign diplomats resident in Iran. Bush administration officials, however, have dismissed the proposed opening as a tactical move.

The administration repeatedly has rejected talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002. Within hours of receiving Ahmadinejad's letter, Rice dismissed it as containing nothing new.

But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response.

Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Iranian analysts said Ahmadinejad's familiar list of grievances on Iraq, Israel and terrorism was designed largely for domestic consumption. CIA analysts and experts on Iran within the government said it also could be interpreted as an attempt to articulate points for possible discussion with Washington.

"There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA until last fall.

"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on," Pillar said. "We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."

Inside Iran, the letter effectively widened an opening toward the United States that began in March, with Larijani's unusually public acceptance of an American invitation to direct talks on the situation in neighboring Iraq. That acceptance provoked sharp criticism from hard-liners until it was publicly endorsed by Khamenei.

By contrast, Ahmadinejad's letter sparked lavish praise from perhaps the most conservative cleric in Iran's government, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who chairs the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's electoral process. Delivering the Friday sermon on May 12 in Tehran, Jannati called it "an extraordinary letter" and "an inspiration by God."

"The taboo is gone, for the first time when someone like Jannati endorses the message," said an Iranian political analyst who said he could not to be quoted by name because his employer had not authorized him to speak publicly.

Earlier attempts at outreach to Washington have been thwarted by conservatives. "The tradition is the hard-liners need American hostility," the analyst said. The most serious attempt was by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami.

"When Khatami tried to do it, the leader rejected it," said the European diplomat. "But I guess they're worried enough. People don't want sanctions. Domestically, it's a good move."

Indeed, by last week, a prominent member of Iran's conservative parliament made headlines proposing talks with members of Congress.

"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."

The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.

Laylaz also saw a second reason: Iran's nuclear program, which recently crossed a key threshold by enriching uranium.

"Now we have something to negotiate," Laylaz said. "The nuclear program of the regime has been successful, because five years ago nobody wanted to hear our voice."

Ordinary Iranians appear to approve of Ahmadinejad's overture. His letter remains at the top of the presidential Web site, http://www.president.ir .

"We have not had any relations for so many years, and Iran was always accused of being unwilling to talk," Masood Mohammadi, 23, said as he left Friday prayers last week. "Now Iran has taken the first step, and I hope the U.S. president replies in kind."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052301540.html

so it appears that there have been a couple letters: the one being discussed in this thread, and a subsequent one that asks for direct talks with the states about the nuclear program. this provides a necessary context for interpreting the first letter, i think. it is interesting, particularly in light of the curious reports about a timetable for amerian withdrawal from iraq by 2007 (we'll see---i hope it is a reasonable timetable--it is definitely a midterm election matter, and clearly refers to that--as for the ways in which is may or may not refer to realities in iraq, we'll have to see)---which places iran in a particular, very advantageous tactical position, regionally.

no time at the moment.

Elphaba · 05-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Ace, I assumed that you read the entire article and had absorbed it's key points. I know that you are not obtuse, so your "pick up the phone" suggestion didn't strike me as being serious and not worthy of a response. But for some reason, you continue to insist that your question be answered. I can only assume that you are either being stubborn or that you have no understanding of the rules of diplomacy. I sincerely believe that the latter can not be true.

Here are some relevant snippets in case you missed them:

Quote:

...the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan,"

Quote:

No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Quote:

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century...

Quote:

"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."

Elphaba · 05-25-2006, 11:37 AM

Why doesn't Iran just pick up the phone? Because Bush will not take the call.

It appears that the Bush administration's response to Iran's overture for direct dialogue is to squelch the already agreed upon discussions concerning Iraq.

U-Turn by White House

Quote:

U-Turn by White House As It Blocks Direct Talks With Iran
By Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK

Thursday 25 May 2006

Hardening of Bush policy rebuffs Tehran's approach. Move appears to surprise US ambassador to Iraq.

The White House yesterday ruled out previously authorised direct talks between Tehran and the US ambassador in Baghdad, which were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite pressure from the international community to enter into direct dialogue with Iran.

A White House official said that although the US envoy had originally been granted a mandate for talks with Iran, "we have decided not to pursue it."

Western diplomats hoped that talks on Iraq could have widened into a discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear arms programme. Iran has been asking in recent weeks for direct talks with Washington on the nuclear issue and the Bush administration had come under pressure from Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, and countries such as Germany to hold direct talks.

Washington's decision not to pursue the talks with Iran on Iraq, which would have been conducted by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, came as the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China concluded a meeting in London last night to discuss a new offer to Iran. The Foreign Office reported progress on agreeing on a combination of sticks and carrots to try to entice Iran into suspending its uranium-enrichment programme, which is seen by the west as a step towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

The progress at the meeting contrasted with a bad-tempered discussion on May 8 between the foreign ministers of the six countries in New York.

The decision not to pursue direct talks has exposed rifts in the Bush administration on how to deal with Iran. Mr Khalilzad had told reporters on Sunday that the formation of the Iraqi government had cleared the way for direct negotiations with Iranian officials. "We have a lot of issues to discuss with them with regard to our concerns and what we envision for Iraq and are prepared to listen to their concerns," he told the Associated Press.

However, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, said yesterday there were no longer any plans for talks. "We will assess the situation and see when talks with the Iranians about the situation in Iraq might be useful," he said, noting that the US had talked to Iran about Afghanistan and drug-trafficking. "If it makes sense in Iraq, we'll do it. But we'll assess it based on what makes sense."

The US has had no formal contact with the Iranian government since students in Tehran took 52 Americans hostage in 1979.

The tough White House line appeared to take Mr Khalilzad's office by surprise. A US official in Baghdad said senior administration officials, including the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had previously said that Mr Khalilzad's talks with the Iranians could proceed once a government in Baghdad was sworn in.

There were also reports of rifts on how to respond to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush. The Washington Post reported that some intelligence analysts saw the letter as an important diplomatic opening and US government experts had "exerted mounting pressure" on the White House to respond.

However, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, ruled out any such response yesterday. "Iran, in responding to pressure, is trying to change the subject and we won't let them change the subject," he said. He said the precondition for bilateral talks would be that Iran cease enriching uranium and did "nothing to build up its capacity to make nuclear weapons".

In the London meeting, senior officials discussed the detail of an offer to construct a light-water nuclear reactor for Iran, which is seen as less of a threat than its uranium-enrichment programme. But the package also includes a threat to punish Iran with sanctions if it refuses to suspend uranium-enrichment.

These sanctions would include a ban on arms sales, no transfer of nuclear technology, no visas for Iranian leaders and officials, and freezing their assets.

There would also be an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. Although Iran is a leading producer of crude oil, it is short of petrol and other oil derivatives.

Western diplomats are braced for rejection by the Iranians. The US, Britain and France would then return to the UN security council to table a resolution setting a deadline for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme or face sanctions.

Does anyone have an explanation on what game strategy is at work here?

aceventura3 · 05-25-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Why doesn't Iran just pick up the phone? Because Bush will not take the call.

Does anyone have an explanation on what game strategy is at work here?

I admit I am a simple person and I don't have an appretiation for subtle complexities or BS. I'll give an analogy (I already know it is simplistic but the basic elements are present) of how I see this and perhaps you or someone can help me, tell me how the subtlties would have an impact on what Sam should do.

Let's say you have Sam (US), Bill (Isreal) and Joe (Iran).

Joe makes publc statement that he is going to destroy Bill's home and wipe him off the face of the earth.

Sam and Bill are friends.

Joe says he is going to learn how to make gun powder, because his kids like fireworks.

Sam says to Joe that he has to back off of his threats against Sam, and stop making gun powder or there will be consequences.

Joe sends a letter published in the newspaper discussing how bad Sam is and how Sam should do what Joe wants.

How do you interpret Joe's letter as an attempt resolve conflict?
Why is it wrong for Sam to insist that Joe back off of his threats against Bill before they can sit down and talk?
If Joe wanted "peace" why wouldn't he retract his statements about destroying Bill?
Why would anyone believe Joe's intent is to produce gun powder for fireworks and not to blow Bill's house into little pieces?

Getting back to the real world - Elphaba says Bush won't take the call, I say he would. We both speculate. However one speculation is wastful "rhetoric" and the other is not. One is based on a real historical event, the other a citation quoting "sources" and "officials". One is reasonable and the other is not based on what Elphaba writes.

Perhaps some objective reader of this post can let me know if I am being unreasonable and obtuse.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ace, I assumed that you read the entire article and had absorbed it's key points. I know that you are not obtuse, so your "pick up the phone" suggestion didn't strike me as being serious and not worthy of a response. But for some reason, you continue to insist that your question be answered. I can only assume that you are either being stubborn or that you have no understanding of the rules of diplomacy. I sincerely believe that the latter can not be true.

Here are some relevant snippets in case you missed them:

I read it. I think it would take an Iranian leader of great courage to initiate direct contact with a US President. Reagan and Gobechev were men of great courage. They both face hostile factions in their home country, many from both nations were against any talks or agreements. Neither man thought highly of the other, both were reluctant. However, they both did what needed to be done. After the initial meeting the men talked regularlly (by phone) and actually became friends. The situation with Iran can be handled the same way.

Elphaba · 05-25-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I read it. I think it would take an Iranian leader of great courage to initiate direct contact with a US President. Reagan and Gobechev were men of great courage. They both face hostile factions in their home country, many from both nations were against any talks or agreements. Neither man thought highly of the other, both were reluctant. However, they both did what needed to be done. After the initial meeting the men talked regularlly (by phone) and actually became friends. The situation with Iran can be handled the same way.

The Soviet Union and United States never ceased to have diplomatic relations.

Ace, can we agree to disagree? I think both of us are getting nowhere with this and it is a distraction to the topic.

aceventura3 · 05-25-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

The Soviet Union and United States never ceased to have diplomatic relations.

Ace, can we agree to disagree? I think both of us are getting nowhere with this and it is a distraction to the topic.

If you want to ignore my posts, that is your choice. I continue to want to be challenged and to challenge the point of view of others.

The central point of the OP was the intent of the letter. I stated it was a pretext for war. I still believe that to be true. The 800 pound gorilla in the room, that many want to ignore, are the threats against Isreal. Central to his letter and this entire issue is the question of Isreal's right to exist. If that is a distraction to you, so be it.

Elphaba · 05-25-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you want to ignore my posts, that is your choice. I continue to want to be challenged and to challenge the point of view of others.

The central point of the OP was the intent of the letter. I stated it was a pretext for war. I still believe that to be true. The 800 pound gorilla in the room, that many want to ignore, are the threats against Isreal. Central to his letter and this entire issue is the question of Isreal's right to exist. If that is a distraction to you, so be it.

The distraction that I refer to is your repeated insistance in my answering your following questions:

1. Why doesn't Iran pick up the phone? Ace, I've done my best to explain to you that formal diplomatic relations do not exist between the two countries and that is why Iran doesn't pick up the phone.

2. Would'nt I pick up the phone? Irrelevant, but it will help to end this impasse, my answer would be no. I would follow diplomatic protocol.

May we move on now? If the central question of the OP asks about the intent of the letter (which is correct), why then must we continue this "pick up the phone" thing.

Let's start again.

I believe that the content of the letter deserved further analysis by experts of the region.

You believe (and I am working from memory) that the letter was nothing but a stalling tactic and didn't deserve further consideration. (Please, if I don't have you thoughts exactly correct, correct it and don't make an issue of it).

I believe that Iran's second overture via the diplomatic community to open direct communications with the US lends significant evidence of the intent of the letter.

You maintain your same view of the letter.

I believe that both initiatives should be taken seriously. Iran must know the Bush will strike, and is trying to step away from the precipice without losing face or a negotiating position.

You believe that this is just another stalling tactic as Iran pursues it's nuclear ambitions.

Would this be a reasonable assessment of our differences of opinion? I will gladly discuss those with you, if you wish. I just have no interest in chasing red herrings.

aceventura3 · 05-26-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Would this be a reasonable assessment of our differences of opinion? I will gladly discuss those with you, if you wish. I just have no interest in chasing red herrings.

You have given a basic assessment of our differences of opinion but I am not sure you understand why I have the view that I have. Perhaps the "why" is what you consider chasing a red herring.

Elphaba · 05-26-2006, 08:40 AM

I would welcome a clarification of the "why."

aceventura3 · 05-26-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I would welcome a clarification of the "why."

1) Iran would not publically maintain the position of wanting to destroy Isreal if they sincerely wanted to establish diplomatic relations with the US and the rest of the world - if they truely wanted to end the stand off on "nuclear power".

2) The US has made it clear that we would not recognize or support Hamas as long has Hamas supports terrorism, Iran supports Hamas and in the letter criticizes the US for not recogonizing or supporting the elected Hamas government.

3) Muslim leaders look for moral justification for war. The letter outlines Iran's moral justification for standing against a nation that has done and continues to do evil, from their point of view.

4) Reasonable people would not use a public letter intended to embarass the other party as an attempt to open the lines of communication. Real diplomacy happens "behind the scences".

5) The US has made it clear that Iran must stop its nuclear program before diplomacy. A sincere appeal for diplomacy would involve a willingness to at least freeze the nuclear program in Iran. They have nothing to loose by stating a willingness to freeze the program and initiate talks.

6) Iranian hatered of the US runs deep, and goes back at minimum 30 years, and I would bet even further through the US supported reign of the Shah. Nothing has changed that would have an affect on the level of hate.

7) The initial letter parrots many criticisms commonly made against the US and Bush in the media here and around the world. Those criticisms have no value in establishing diplomatic relations.

Elphaba · 05-26-2006, 06:29 PM

Thank you, Ace. I really didn't have a clear perception of your thoughts. I would like to share mine, point by point, not for the purpose of being argumentative, but to clarify my thoughts as well.

Quote:

1) Iran would not publically maintain the position of wanting to destroy Isreal if they sincerely wanted to establish diplomatic relations with the US and the rest of the world - if they truely wanted to end the stand off on "nuclear power".

I agree with you that the rhetoric is foolish, but with the exception of Egypt, Israel is surrounded by nation states that agree with Iran. The arbitrary creation of Israel by the West following WWII, created many enemies as you know.

I also think that the Bush rhetoric such as "axis of evil" was not helpful. Iran made an attempt to normalize relations with the US following Bush's State of the Union address, but was ignored then as now.

I am as frustrated as you are in the secret language of diplomacy. In the articles I have posted, it is as if each response is a calculated chess move. "Obviously, Iran is desperate" for example. When you see me asking, "why" it is a sincere question. I just don't get 'it'.

Quote:

2) The US has made it clear that we would not recognize or support Hamas as long has Hamas supports terrorism, Iran supports Hamas and in the letter criticizes the US for not recogonizing or supporting the elected Hamas government.

Ace, our country is promoting democracy and free elections throughout the world. This would not be the first time that our government was not pleased with the outcome of a popular vote. I can step back and see why middle eastern countries in particular would view the US withdrawal of previous funding as a hypocritical move.

Did you see in today's news that President Abbas has given Hamas ten days to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel? This would be an action that would imply the recognition of Israel. We live in interesting times.

Quote:

3) Muslim leaders look for moral justification for war. The letter outlines Iran's moral justification for standing against a nation that has done and continues to do evil, from their point of view.

Ace, isn't Bush using the very same justification? Bush views Iran as an "axis of evil." Iran responds with calling the US "the Great Satan." I fully realize that you and I disagree about the intent of Ahmadinejad's letter. Bush has claimed that his actions are guided by God, and the president of Iran responds to their shared Abrahamic beliefs. If I had an opportunity to question Bush in terms of his moral choices, I would be asking the very same questions. Forgive my cynicism, but it is my belief that Bush was and continues to placate the evangelical right.

Quote:

4) Reasonable people would not use a public letter intended to embarass the other party as an attempt to open the lines of communication. Real diplomacy happens "behind the scences".

I really can't speak to whether Iran knew that this letter would become public, but it certainly did via Le Monde. Please excuse my small smile when you and I needlessly debated the "pick up the phone" and now you acknowledge that would be outside "real diplomacy."

Quote:

5) The US has made it clear that Iran must stop its nuclear program before diplomacy. A sincere appeal for diplomacy would involve a willingness to at least freeze the nuclear program in Iran. They have nothing to loose by stating a willingness to freeze the program and initiate talks.

President Bush has proclaimed over and over that all diplomatic measures will be taken before resorting to military action. I completely agree with you that Iran has been given a golden opportunity to move forward by the UN and the participating negotiating countries. If Iran agrees to temporarily cease uranium enrichment, do you think Bush will agree to opening a dialogue with Iran? I do not believe he will, hence my concern about an Iran policy other than what we have been told.

Quote:

6) Iranian hatered of the US runs deep, and goes back at minimum 30 years, and I would bet even further through the US supported reign of the Shah. Nothing has changed that would have an affect on the level of hate.

I very much agree with you, and it does go beyond the Shah when the US toppled Iran's democratically elected president. He made the serious mistake of nationalizing the country's oil reserves. The US installed the Shah which had the unintended consequences that are often seen when we interfere with a nation state. The shah's despotic abuses led to the rise of the Islamic mullah's. I believe we can assume that the "hatred" is mutual.

Quote:

7) The initial letter parrots many criticisms commonly made against the US and Bush in the media here and around the world. Those criticisms have no value in establishing diplomatic relations.

This is similar to your statement in your third comment and I can't think of anything else I would wish to add.

I appreciate the opportunity that you have given to allow me a better insight on your thoughts.

Pen

host · 05-27-2006, 01:01 AM

There is a long term conflict being played out within the Bush administration, and "moderates"....sane American diplomats who believe in exploring alternatives to war....do not...IMO....stand any chance of prevailing in their attempts to engage Iran in peaceful dialogue and possible compromise. The same BS plays out...again and again....but direct talks between the U.S. and Iran will not occur. The folks in the Bush administration affiliated with JINSA, and corporatist interests like the Carlysle group and <a href="http://www.vinnell.com/">Northrop Grumman</a> (read next post for background...) will see to it that "lip service" is paid to diplomacy.....and then the bombing starts.

First....there are news reports like this one:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/wo...rtner=homepage
U.S. Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: May 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 26 — The Bush administration is beginning to debate whether to set aside a longstanding policy taboo and open direct talks with Iran, to help avert a crisis over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, European officials and Americans close to the administration said Friday.......

.....European leaders make no secret of their desire for the United States to join in the talks with Iran, if only to show that the Americans have gone the extra mile to avoid a confrontation that could spiral into a fight over sanctions or even military action.

But since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the crisis over the seizure of American hostages in November that year, the United States has avoided direct talks with Iran. There were sporadic contacts during the war in Afghanistan, in the early stages of the Iraq war and in the days after the earthquake in Bam, Iran, at the end of 2003.

European officials say Ms. Rice has begun discussing the issue with top aides at the State Department. Her belief, they say, is that ultimately the matter will have to be addressed by the administration's national security officials, whether talks with Iran remain at an impasse or even if there is some progress.

But others who know her well say she is resisting on the ground that signaling a willingness to talk would show weakness and disrupt the delicate negotiations with Europe. Ms. Rice is also said to fear that the administration might end up making too many concessions to Iran.

Administration officials said President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have opposed direct talks, even through informal back channels. As a result, many European officials say they doubt that a decision to talk is likely soon.

The prospect of direct talks between the United States and Iran is so politically delicate within the Bush administration that the officials who described the emerging debate would discuss it only after being granted anonymity.

Those officials included representatives of several European countries, as well as Americans who said they had discussed the issue recently with people inside the Bush administration. Some of the officials made clear that they favored direct talks between the United States and Iran.

State Department officials refused to talk about the issue, even anonymously. But over the last week, administration spokesmen have been careful not to rule out talks. ........

.....Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a recent column in The Washington Post, raised the possibility that the recent rambling letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush — dismissed by Ms. Rice as an offensive tirade— could be seen as an opportunity to open contacts.

Both Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Powell, have also advocated talks with Iran.

"Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends," Mr. Armitage said in a telephone interview. "You've got to talk to people who aren't our friends, and even people you dislike. Some people in the administration think that diplomacy is a sign of weakness. In fact, it can show that you're strong."

Mr. Armitage held the last high-level discussions with Iran, after the Bam earthquake. In November 2004, Mr. Powell sat next to the Iranian foreign minister at a dinner during a conference in Egypt on Iraq, but he said they engaged only in small talk.....

The only thing that CON-doleeza "fears" is that actual diplomacy, could remove the excuses intended to escalate the Iran confrontation into a limited and successful series of military attacks to coincide with the November congressional elections.

Is my view, too partisan....too unreasonable? I don't think so....here's why:

host · 05-27-2006, 01:39 AM

Folks....the U.S. has deliberately sabotaged two seperate opportunities to improve ties with Iran in a spirit of mutual co-operation. The following new article excerpt details how Bush himself ended the first chance to improve relations by adding Iran to his early 2002 "axis of evil" speech, before the effort of potentially promising secret diplomacy with Iran by Powell's State Dept., could result in mutually beneficial improvement of relations.

Quote:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=11539
Burnt Offering
How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity -- if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.

By Gareth Porter
Issue Date: 06.06.06

......The September 11 attacks created an entirely new strategic context for engagement with Iran. The evening of 9-11, Flynt Leverett, a career CIA analyst who was then at the State Department as a counter-terrorism expert, and a small group of officials met with Powell. It was the beginning of work on a diplomatic strategy in support of the U.S. effort to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda network it had harbored. The main aim was to gain the cooperation of states that were considered sponsors of terrorism.

“The United States was about to mount a global war on terrorism with complete legitimacy from the United Nations,” recalls Leverett, “and these states didn’t want to get on the downside of it.” Within weeks, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan all approached the United States through various channels to offer their help in the fight against al-Qaeda. “The Iranians said we don’t like al-Qaeda any better than you, and we have assets in Afghanistan that could be useful,” Leverett recalls.

It was the beginning of a period of extraordinary strategic cooperation between Iran and the United States. As America began preparing for the military operation in Afghanistan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker held a series of secret meetings with Iranian officials in Geneva. In those meetings, Iran offered search-and-rescue help, humanitarian assistance, and even advice on which targets to bomb in Afghanistan, according to one former administration official. The Iranians, who had been working for years with the main anti-Taliban coalition, the Northern Alliance, also advised the Americans about how to negotiate the major ethnic and political fault lines in the country.

The Iranian-U.S. strategic rapprochement continued to gain momentum in November and December 2001. In early December, at a conference in Bonn to set up a post-Taliban Afghan government, Iran pressed its allies in the Northern Alliance to limit their demands for ministerial seats and even made sure antiterrorism language was included in the agreement, according to U.S. Special Envoy James Dobbins. Leverett agrees. “The Bonn Conference would not have been successful without [Iran’s] cooperation,” he says. “They had real contacts with the players on the ground in Afghanistan, and they proposed to use that influence in continuing coordination with the United States.”

The Office of Policy Planning had written a paper in late November arguing that the United States had “a real opportunity” to work more closely with Iran on al-Qaeda. It proposed exchanges of information and coordinated border sweeps, requiring no more than sharing tactical intelligence on al-Qaeda with Iran, with the expectation that even more valuable intelligence would come from the Iranians. That proposal was supported by the CIA as well as from the White House coordinator on counterterrorism, Wayne Downing.

The strategy advocated by Haass and Leverett, with the encouragement of Armitage and Powell, was to use the new desire of states still listed as sponsors of terrorism -- especially Iran and Syria -- to cooperate with the United States to press for larger changes in policy. The idea, Leverett recalls, was to “have broader conversations with them about support for terrorist groups and say, ‘We will take you off the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list if you do the following.’”

With Iran, such discussions would also have to cover the country’s nuclear program. The Policy Planning staff had been putting together options that would revolve around different levels of incentives, ranging from modest benefits such as support for Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization to a more comprehensive offer that would include security guarantees, according to a source familiar with the proposal. Wilkerson describes the resulting plan for a dialogue with Iran as having “quite a lot of detail.”

Neoconservatives Strike Back

The post-9-11 period was the most promising moment for a U.S. opening to Iran since the two countries cut their relations in 1979. But neoconservatives had no intention of letting the engagement initiative get off the ground, and they were well-positioned to ensure that it didn’t.

The main drama around Iran policy in late 2001 was played out in the White House, where the drafting of the State of the Union message was under way and where the neoconservatives held sway. The inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” was at first opposed by then–National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, because, as Hadley told journalist Bob Woodward, Iran, unlike Iraq or North Korea, had a “complicated political structure with a democratically elected president.” But Bush had already made up his mind; regime change was the goal.

A stronger, more self-confident national security adviser would have insisted that an ill-informed President consider the pros and cons of making such a far-reaching foreign-policy decision on the basis of a half-baked concept, and perhaps insist on intelligence advice on the matter. But Rice had already earned a reputation among national security officials for always staying in Bush’s good graces by taking whatever position she believed he would favor. “She would guess which way the President would go and make sure that’s where she came out,” says Wilkerson, who watched her operate for four years. “She would be an advocate up to a point, but her advocacy would cease as soon as she sniffed the President’s position.”

Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led the neoconservative push for regime change. But it was Douglas Feith, the abrasive and aggressively pro-Israel undersecretary of defense for policy, who was responsible for developing the details of the policy. Feith had two staff members, Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, who spoke Farsi, and a third, William Luti, whom one former U.S. official recalls being “downright irrational” on anything having to do with Iran. A former intelligence official who worked on the Middle East said, “I’ve had a couple of Israeli generals tell me off the record that they think Luti is insane.”

In December 2001, Feith secretly dispatched Franklin and Rhode to Rome to meet with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the shady Iranian arms dealer in the Iran-Contra affair, and other Iranians. Administration officials later told Warren P. Strobel of the Knight Ridder media chain that they had learned that among those Iranians were representatives of the Mujahadeen e Khalq (MEK), a paramilitary organization Saddam had used for acts of terror against non-Sunni Iraqis and Iran.

In December, the question of policy toward the state sponsors of terrorism was taken up by the “deputies committee” made up of Hadley, who served as chairman, Armitage, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and a deputy to CIA Director George Tenet. The outcome was already foretold. “It was decided that to engage with these states was a concession to terrorism, a reward for bad behavior,” Leverett recalls. In rules for dealing with Iran and Syria, referred to informally as the “Hadley Rules,” the committee further decreed that there could be no sharing of intelligence information or any other cooperation on al-Qaeda, although the states in question could be asked to provide information or other cooperation unilaterally. The new rules put U.S. policy toward Iran in a straitjacket requiring that Iran could never be treated as a sovereign equal on any issue.

It was clear to State Department officials that no progress could be made toward engaging Iran without a formal Iran policy that would supersede the Hadley Rules. In early 2002, Leverett worked on a draft National Security Presidential Decision (NSPD) calling for diplomatic engagement. But Feith’s staff came up with their own revised version of the draft, which turned into a policy of regime change, according to Leverett. The engagement group wanted Rice to hold an interagency meeting and force the issue, but she failed to do it, according to both Leverett and Wilkerson. The neoconservatives had prevailed through a costly policy default on Iran.

The Iranians Try For A Grand Bargain

Bush’s axis-of-evil speech was followed by public charges and press leaks from the administration that Iran was deliberately “harboring” al-Qaeda cadres who had fled from Afghanistan. In fact, the Iranians had made a serious effort to cooperate with Washington on al-Qaeda, according to Leverett. When the administration requested that the Iranian government send more guards to the Afghan border to intercept al-Qaeda cadres, Iran did so. And when Washington asked Iran to look out for specific al-Qaeda leaders who had entered Iran, Iran put a hold on their visas.

The effect of the Bush administration’s signals of hostility was to discredit the idea of cooperation with Washington as a means of obtaining U.S. concessions to Iranian interests. Reflecting the mood in Tehran, in May 2002, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the idea of negotiations with the United States as useless.

But Iranian calculations were dramatically altered by the impending U.S. attack on Iraq. In late 2002, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad met with Iranian officials in Geneva, asked for assistance for any American pilots downed in Iranian territory, and requested that Iran refrain from putting forces into Iraq. Journalist Afshin Molavi was told by Iranian sources that the Iranians agreed to both requests but insisted on a pledge by the United States not to attack Iran after it had removed Saddam, to which Khalilzad gave an equivocal answer.

Iranian national security officials were convinced that the Bush administration intended to move against their country once the United States had consolidated its position in Iraq. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies who has had extensive interviews with officials of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council as well as the Foreign Ministry, says, “They believed if they didn’t do something, Iran would be next.”

The only way Iranian officials could head off that threat was to offer Washington things it needed in return for things that Iran needed. In early 2003, the Iranians believed they had three new sources of bargaining leverage with Washington: the huge potential influence in a post-Saddam Iraq of the Iranian-trained and anti-American Iraqi Shiite political parties and military organizations in exile in Iran; the Bush administration’s growing concern about Iran’s nuclear program; and the U.S. desire to interrogate the al-Qaeda leaders Iran had captured in 2002.

As the United States was beginning its military occupation of Iraq in April, the Iranians were at work on a bold and concrete proposal to negotiate with the United States on the full range of issues in the U.S.-Iran conflict. Iran’s then-ambassador to France, Sadegh Kharrazi, the nephew of then–Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, drafted the document, which was approved by the highest authorities in the Iranian system, including the Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Khamenei himself, according to a letter accompanying the document from the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, who served as an intermediary. Parsi says senior Iranian national security officials confirmed in interviews in August 2004 that Khamenei was “directly involved in the document.”

The proposal, a copy of which is in the author’s possession, offered a dramatic set of specific policy concessions Tehran was prepared to make in the framework of an overall bargain on its nuclear program, its policy toward Israel, and al-Qaeda. It also proposed the establishment of three parallel working groups to negotiate “road maps” on the three main areas of contention -- weapons of mass destruction, “terrorism and regional security,” and “economic cooperation.”

The document was sent to Washington just in time for a meeting between Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif and Khalilzad in Geneva on May 2, 2003. One copy arrived at the State Department by fax, and a second copy was taken to State in person by an American intermediary, according to a source who has discussed the letter with the intermediary.

The proposal offered “decisive action against any terrorists (above all, al-Qaeda) in Iranian territory” and “full cooperation and exchange of all relevant information.” It also indicated, however, that Iran wanted from the United States the “pursuit of anti-Iranian terrorists, above all MKO” -- the Iranian acronym for the Mujihedeen e Khalq (MEK), which had fought alongside Iraqi troops in the war against Iran and was on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations -- “and support for repatriation of their members in Iraq” as well as actions against the organization in the United States.

At the May 2 meeting in Geneva, a separate proposal involving exchange of information about al-Qaeda detainees and the MEK was spelled out by Ambassador Zarif. According to Leverett, Zarif informed Khalilzad that Iran would hand over the names of senior al-Qaeda cadres detained in Iran in return for the names of the MEK cadres and troops who had been captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.

To meet the U.S. concern about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the document offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for “full access to peaceful nuclear technology.” It proposed “full transparency for security [assurance] that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD” and “full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols).” That was a reference to new IAEA protocols that would guarantee the IAEA access to any facility, whether declared or undeclared, on short notice -- something Iran had been urged to adopt but was resisting in the hope of getting something in return. The adoption of those protocols would have made it significantly more difficult for Iran to carry on a secret nuclear program without the risk of being caught.

The Iranian proposal also offered a sweeping reorientation of Iranian policy toward Israel. In the past, Iran had attacked those Arab governments that had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and Tehran had supported armed groups that opposed it. But the document offered “acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration (Saudi initiative, two-states approach).” The March 2002 declaration had embraced the land-for-peace principle and a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel’s withdrawal to 1967 lines. That position would have aligned Iran’s policy with that of the moderate Arab regimes.

The document also offered a “stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory” and “pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967.” Finally it proposed “action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon.” That package of proposals was a clear bid for removal of Iran from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The document appears to have assumed that the United States would be dependent on Iran’s help in stabilizing Iraq. It offered “coordination of Iranian influence for activity supporting political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a nonreligious government.” In return, the Iranians wanted “democratic and fully representative government in Iraq” (meaning a government chosen by popular election, which would allow its Shiite allies to gain power) and “support for Iranian claims for Iraqi reparations,” referring to Iranian claims against Iraq for having started the Iran-Iraq War.

Finally, its aims included “respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbal.” Those references suggested that Tehran wanted some formal acknowledgement of its legitimate interests in Iraq as next-door neighbor, and of the historically close relations between the Shiite clergy in Iran and in those Iraqi Shiite centers.

The list of Iranian aims also included an end to U.S. “hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.,” including its removal from the “axis of evil” and the “terrorism list,” and an end to all economic sanctions against Iran. But it also asked for “[r]ecognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according [appropriate] defense capacity.” According to knowledgeable observers of Iranian policy making, the ambition to be recognized as a legitimate power in the Persian Gulf, with a seat at the table in any regional discussions, has been a major motivation for many years for the Iranian national security establishment to reach an agreement with the United States.

Bush Administration Brush-Off

Iran’s historic proposal for a broad diplomatic agreement should have prompted high-level discussions over the details of an American response. In fact, however, the issue was quickly closed to further discussion. Leverett believes the document was a “respectable effort” to provide a basis for negotiations. Yet he recalls that there was no interagency meeting to discuss it. “The State Department knew it had no chance at the interagency level of arguing the case for it successfully,” he says. “They weren’t going to waste Powell’s rapidly diminishing capital on something that unlikely.”

The outcome of discussion among the principals -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell -- was that State was instructed to ignore the proposal and to reprimand Guldimann for having passed it on. “It was literally a few days,” Leverett recalls, between the arrival of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of the message of displeasure with the Swiss ambassador.

The offer of a narrower deal over al-Qaeda and the anti-Iranian terrorist group touched off a brief period of intensive maneuvering by both sides in the administration over U.S. policy toward the MEK. When the proposed al-Qaeda–MEK exchange of information was discussed at a White House meeting, proponents of regime change sought to differentiate MEK from al-Qaeda. Bush is said to have responded, “But we say there is no such thing as a good terrorist,” according to Leverett.

Although Bush did not approve an al-Qaeda–MEK deal, he did approve the disarming of the MEK who had surrendered to U.S. troops in Iraq, as the State Department requested, and allowed State to continue the talks in Geneva.

But on May 12, 2003, a terrorist bombing in Ryadh killed eight Americans and 26 Saudis. Rumsfeld and Feith seized the occasion to regain the initiative on Iran. Three days later, Rumsfeld declared, “We know there are senior al-Qaeda in Iran … presumably not an ungoverned area.” The following day someone obviously reflecting Rumsfeld’s views gave David Martin of CBS News an exclusive story. “U.S. officials say they have evidence the bombings in Saudi Arabia and other attacks still in the works were planned and directed by senior al-Qaeda operatives who have found safe haven in Iran,” Martin reported.

But in fact U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iranian government was intentionally allowing al-Qaeda to remain on Iranian soil. Contrary to Rumsfeld’s disingenuous statement, U.S. intelligence did not conclude that the government knew where the al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan were located in Iran. “The Iran experts agreed that, even if al-Qaeda had come in and out of Iran, it didn’t mean the Iranian government was complicit,” recalls Wilkerson. “There were parts of Iran where the government would not know what was going on.”

Nevertheless, within a few days, Rumsfeld and Cheney had persuaded Bush to cancel the May 21 meeting with Iranian officials. In a masterstroke, Rumsfeld and Cheney had shut down the only diplomatic avenue available for communicating with Iran and convinced Bush that Iran was on the same side as al-Qaeda................

Here's the background on the target of the May 12, 2003, Riyadh attack. I've included a link that provides background on the Australian newspaper that reported the story. Vinnell was sold by the Carlysle group to TRW, which was then swallowed by Northrop Grumman....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Morning_Herald

Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...885294304.html
Company was a carefully chosen target

By Marian Wilkinson Herald Correspondent in Washington
May 15 2003

The bloody attacks in Riyadh are telling because of their targets, in particular the Vinnell Corporation. The residential compound and the offices used by Vinnell were hit, killing nine of its employees and injuring several others, two of whom are in a critical condition. Seven of the dead were Americans.

Al-Qaeda has a particular hatred for Vinnell because the American company trains the Saudi Arabian National Guard, the country's internal security force and an integral part of the military forces.

The National Guard is supposed to be a mobile and hard-hitting counter-insurgency force and is critical to the security of the Saudi regime.

Vinnell, under contract to the United States Army, employs some 800 people in Saudi Arabia, including 300 Americans. It recently came under the financial control of the giant US military contractor Northrop, which said it was "deeply shocked by this senseless attack and [mourned] the loss of our colleagues".

The death toll at the compound could have been much higher, but about 50 of the 70 residents were out of the city on a training exercise.

Vinnell's relationship with Saudi Arabia over nearly 30 years has been intriguing and controversial. For years it was owned by the Carlyle group, a defence and investment house close to the Bush family. Several former Republican cabinet ministers sat on Carlyle's board.

Dan Briody, author of a new book on the Carlyle group, tells how Saudi Arabia's military dependence on the US can be traced back to 1975, when Vinnell was hired by the Pentagon on a $US77 million contract to train Saudi troops to protect the country's oilfields. Some 1000 US special forces were recruited, Briody reports, most of whom came from Vietnam.

In 1992 Vinnell was taken over by the Carlyle group, whose chairman was Ronald Reagan's former defence secretary, Frank Carlucci. George Bush snr would later act on behalf of Carlyle and in 1993 Mr Bush snr's former secretary of state, James Baker, joined the company.

By then, Vinnell had trained the Saudi National Guard, and had worked alongside it during the first Gulf War, launched while George Bush snr and Mr Baker were still in office. Indeed Vinnell, Briody says, "paved the way for co-operation between the United States and Saudi Arabia during the [first] Gulf War".

It was this co-operation that infuriated Osama bin Laden, who believed "infidels" were being used to defend Saudi Arabia. In November 1995, a car bombing at Vinnell's offices in Riyadh killed five Americans.

In 1997 Vinnell was taken over by the American military contractor TRW, but continued its work for the Saudi Government. Last year, when TRW merged with Northrop, Vinnell found itself with a new owner.

Samer Shehata, a Saudi military analyst at Georgetown University, said the attack on Vinnell indicated serious planning.

"It shows some thinking behind the targets. It's not just Westerners who happen to be there," he said.

"This is the compound that houses these people who do training for the Saudi military, that is, Americans providing security for the Saudi regime. That's really a significant message."

The Mujaheddin-e Khalq or "MEK" is the anti Iranian terrorist organization that the neo-cons armed in late 2001 to signal Tehran that there would be no co-operation between the U.S. and Iran in the "war on terror":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...7465-2003Sep10
State Questions Military Tolerance of Iranian Dissidents

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A19

The State Department has expressed concern to the Pentagon that the U.S. military appears to have allowed an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group to continue its activities against the Iranian government, including crossing into Iran to conduct attacks, despite an order from President Bush that the group be disarmed, administration officials said yesterday.....

......The struggle over the Mujaheddin-e Khalq has mirrored a larger battle within the administration over policy toward Iran, and also sheds light on the ongoing policy rivalry between the State and Defense Departments. Some State Department officials have pressed for a thaw in relations with Iran, only to meet stiff resistance from Pentagon and White House officials........

...... Despite the group's terrorist designation, the political arm of the group has for years maintained an office in Washington and held frequent news conferences to call attention to allegations that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Last month, Powell ordered the office shut down and its assets seized, a move that won rare praise from the Iranian government.

In January, before the war against Iraq was launched, U.S. officials held a secret meeting with Iranian officials and suggested the United States would target the People's Mujaheddin as a way of gaining Iran's cooperation to seal its border and provide assistance to search-and-rescue missions for downed U.S. pilots during the war. In early April, U.S. forces bombed the Mujaheddin camps, killing about 50 people, according to the group, before a cease-fire was arranged on April 15. That was during a period of growing alarm within the administration about spreading Iranian influence among Iraqi Shiites.

The cease-fire convinced the Iranian government it had been double-crossed on the issue of the Mujaheddin. But within weeks, Bush's senior policy advisers reversed course and ordered U.S. forces to disarm the group, secretly telling Iranian officials even before action was taken on May 9.

Since then, however, relations with Iran have soured over continuing revelations about its nuclear program and allegations that it harbors al Qaeda leaders implicated in the May 13 bombings of residential compounds in Saudi Arabia. After the bombings, U.S. officials suspended the secret talks with Iranian officials.

Six months after the May, 2003 Riyadh attack provided an excuse to avoid talks with Iran, it was time for the U.S. to appear to put on it's diplomatic "face", again....to fake a sincere desire for peaceful resolution under the watchful eye of the European community:

Quote:

October 29, 2003
Author: Glenn Kessler; Washington Post Staff Writer

Six months after halting talks with Iran, the Bush administration said yesterday that it is prepared to resume discreet discussions with the Islamic republic over Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues.
"We are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest as appropriate," Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in testimony prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But he stressed that the talks would not be a "broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations," which were terminated after the 1979 revolution.

U.S. and Iranian officials had met several times in Geneva both before and after the war in Iraq, with the last session taking place May 3. But the administration halted the contacts after the May 12 bombings of residential compounds in Saudi Arabia, alleging that Iran was harboring al Qaeda operatives responsible for the attacks.

The Iranians have denied the charge and have repeatedly pressed the administration to restart the contacts. Iran, which shares a long border with Iraq, has sought to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate with the administration, including recognizing the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and contributing resources for Iraq at a donors conference last week in Madrid.

The Bush administration has urged Iran to turn over al Qaeda members. Armitage in his testimony linked Iran's cooperation on al Qaeda to better relations with the United States, saying "resolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations." But he told reporters that it is not a prerequisite to restarting the talks.

Iran has privately suggested to the administration that it will turn over al Qaeda members in exchange for captured members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that had operated out of Iraq. Armitage ruled out such a deal yesterday, "because we can't be sure of the way they'd be treated," referring to the MEK members. He said officials were questioning MEK members to determine who had terrorist connections. "In my understanding, a certain number of those do," he said, adding that they will face charges.

Under questioning, Armitage said it was a mistake for the U.S. military to have arranged a cease-fire agreement with the MEK during the war, a decision that alarmed Iran. "We shouldn't have been signing a cease-fire with a foreign terrorist organization," he said.

Consider who is "in" and who is "out"....in the Bush administration, three years later. Powell is gone, and Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Hadley are still there.

I doubt that my observation that the U.S. administration appears to have a personality disorder, would be much different from the impression that Iranian political leaders would harbor after watching the Bush administration gradually turn it's own State Department into an irrelevant branch of Rumsfeld and Cheney's DOD. In Gareth Porter's new article, this sums it up:

Quote:

In rules for dealing with Iran and Syria, referred to informally as the “Hadley Rules,” the committee further decreed that there could be no sharing of intelligence information or any other cooperation on al-Qaeda, although the states in question could be asked to provide information or other cooperation unilaterally. The new rules put U.S. policy toward Iran in a straitjacket requiring that Iran could never be treated as a sovereign equal on any issue.

The intent is not the "win the war on terror". It is to win fat contracts for connected contractors, U.S. elections, and pave the way for a corporatist government with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theory">"unitary executive"</a>, unencumbered or restricted by the consitution, congress, the courts, or the common people of the United States.

To an Iranian official, or to anyone else who once perceived the U.S. as a country that could be assumed to act in it's own best interests, all hopes of that happening, appear to be dashed. There was a struggle for power and influence....and the neocons won. The reports of the longterm damage that they are doing to our country's reputation in the world community, and to it's treasury, security, and military capability....will be streaming in far into the future.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I appreciate the opportunity that you have given to allow me a better insight on your thoughts.
Pen

I hope that I am wrong and that you have the correct view of Iran's intent.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The intent is not the "win the war on terror". It is to win fat contracts for connected contractors, U.S. elections, and pave the way for a corporatist government with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theory">"unitary executive"</a>, unencumbered or restricted by the consitution, congress, the courts, or the common people of the United States.

To an Iranian official, or to anyone else who once perceived the U.S. as a country that could be assumed to act in it's own best interests, all hopes of that happening, appear to be dashed. There was a struggle for power and influence....and the neocons won. The reports of the longterm damage that they are doing to our country's reputation in the world community, and to it's treasury, security, and military capability....will be streaming in far into the future.

I planned on walking away from this discussion until I read your post.

Here is another perspective, an editorial from Investors Business Daily. They are as conservative as it gets. They agree that Iran wants bilateral talks with the US, but see it as a no-win situation for us. Seems that they think that Russia, China and the EU have the most to gain. Like me, they see little to feel good about. And, it is truely sad that about half of the people in this country have no faith that our President can do the right thing, Iran is smart enough to know that and will use the information.

Quote:

Neutralizing Tehran
Posted 5/26/2006

Nuclear Proliferation: As Europe caves and Iran drags its feet, the pressure grows for the U.S. to engage in one-on-one talks with Iran. We shouldn't let Iran — or the rest of the world — off so easy.

The temptation to let the U.S. go toe-to-toe in talks with Iran over its burgeoning nuclear weapons program is great. After all, the European Union has shown no willingness to get tough with Iran's rogue leaders.

Last week, after meetings of the "six world powers," the EU offered, in the words of a Reuters dispatch, to "drop the automatic threat of military action if Iran remains defiant."

Ponder that for a moment. The EU says it will, in essence, do nothing, no matter what — other than, perhaps, put some feeble sanctions in place. Yet it somehow expects this will prod Iran to act.

Iran, meanwhile, is pushing hard to have the U.S. engage in bilateral talks, excluding others. Doing so would be quite fruitful. It would let Iran play the "America as bully" card, claiming the U.S. is being too tough on a "developing" nation.

Saddam played that card brilliantly before the U.S.-led war. Today, many in the world's intelligentsia willingly parrot Saddam's line, asserting — contrary to logic and available evidence — that the U.S. picked a fight with Iraq for no good reason.

Iran knows it will be able to isolate the U.S. in world opinion, absolve the craven United Nations of all responsibility for Iran's actions, further humiliate Europe and move forward with its nuclear program, all in one swoop. And it'll do so safe in the knowledge that in mere weeks the U.S. will be blamed for the whole mess.

But wait! That's already happening. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, basically blamed the U.S., as a nuclear power, for encouraging countries like Iran to build their own arsenals.

So the bottom line is: It's America's fault — not Iran's. And when Iran builds a nuke and uses it — on Israel, or Saudi Arabia, maybe even Europe — that, too, will be our fault.

As you read this, Russian, Chinese and EU officials are busy crafting an elaborate "incentive" plan to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. But given that China and Russia, both major trade partners with oil-rich Iran, have said they will not go along with sanctions or military action against Iran, an obvious question arises: What incentive does Iran have to do anything?

The answer is none. Europe is starting to see the limits of its kinder, gentler approach, and in recent days has hinted it might just want the U.S. to help it with missile defense after all. That would be a step forward for Europe, which until recently showed few signs of wanting to defend itself.

As for the U.S., we really don't need to talk further with Iran about anything. Bilateral talks won't do any good, but they could do much harm. And further U.N. efforts are a waste of time.

So what to do? The U.S. now would best be served by convincing EU allies to go along with a package of economic sanctions. If those don't work, our cards are already on the table:

The U.S. will not tolerate — cannot tolerate — Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That means we, or our friends in Israel, will have to take out Iran's nuclear installations. It's that simple.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060526

If your were President what would you have to say to Iran? What would you negotiate? What do you want from them? What are you willing to give up? Would there be consequences? What would they be? I sure you, or anyone who agrees with your view, won't answer these questions, but at least it is food for thought.

Just for the record, this is bigger than Neo-Con v. Conservative v. Liberal. In my view this is like the Cuban Missle Crisis, handled well by a Democrat and the End of the Cold War, handled well by a Republican.

host · 05-29-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I planned on walking away from this discussion until I read your post.

Here is another perspective, an editorial from Investors Business Daily. They are as conservative as it gets. They agree that Iran wants bilateral talks with the US, but see it as a no-win situation for us. Seems that they think that Russia, China and the EU have the most to gain. Like me, they see little to feel good about. And, it is truely sad that about half of the people in this country have no faith that our President can do the right thing, Iran is smart enough to know that and will use the information.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060526

If your were President what would you have to say to Iran? What would you negotiate? What do you want from them? What are you willing to give up? Would there be consequences? What would they be? I sure you, or anyone who agrees with your view, won't answer these questions, but at least it is food for thought.

Just for the record, this is bigger than Neo-Con v. Conservative v. Liberal. In my view this is like the Cuban Missle Crisis, handled well by a Democrat and the End of the Cold War, handled well by a Republican.

It's not at all similar to what was happening in Oct., 1962.
I was in 5th grade, and I recall what happened clearly. Kennedy demonstrated that he was negotiating with Kruschev, in the best interests of the American people.

It is not possible for me to undermined Bush in his strategy with Iran. He does not represent my best interests, or those of my family, friends, or neighbors. He sold out most of our interests after 9/11, and probably before that. Bush is president of an elitist corporatist entity, not of the formerly existing government and it's constitution, that he swore on Jan. 20, 2001, to protect, preserve, and defend. That government was "planned" into irrelevance, it's gone.

My point was that, in the months following 9/11, there was, with the government of Iran, just as there was for the U.S. in it's relations with most other governments on the planet, an opportunity to buid co-operative relationships, and trust.

It was to the mutual benefit of both Iran, and the U.S., for example, to share information and work together to apprehend and neutralize the "evil doers" operating in or near Iran. That opportunity was squandered, and any hope for trust building is gone. It was inappropriate for the U.S. to allow the MEK to operate in Iraq, once the U.S. invaded and took "control".

I see no other conclusion that an informed person in the U.S. could draw, other than that, the neocons and their two former secretaries of defense, Rumsfeld and Cheney, have drawn on their past experience and ideology to bring the U.S. to it's present confrontation with Iran, and the circumstances that our military finds itself in now, positioned in Iraq and Afghanistan, directly east and west of Iranian borders.....with under 3000 American troops dead....so far, and with the U.S. military, industrial, intelligence, and security private business sectors flush with "no bid" contracts and profits, while the oil business and oil service multinationals that financially sponsered the candidacy of Bush/Cheney enjoy record returns and unprecedented opportunity for near term profits.

The new, 100 plus acre, 23 building, $1 billion dollar U.S. embassy complex, nearing completion now in Iraq is a sign of the success and permanency of this hidden strategy. Unfortunately....because corporatism and Israeli influenced ideology trumped what was in the best interests of the American people who are now saddled with the debts, and the casualties that the neocon agenda and it's implementation are costing, we the American people are not given an explanantion of the strategy and goals of the master plan.

We are to be exploited, just as the Iraqi people are. This "culture" of "leadership" always ends up with the profits from the no bid contracts that emerge from decisions of the key players, whether it is in Baghdad in april, 2003, when post invasion secuirty was "not planned for", or in Sept., 2005, when political appointees, Chertoff and "Brownie" failed to respond in a timely and organized manner to the N.O. Katrina disaster.

An alternative view would require making an argument that these guys are sincere but inept, have the best interestd of the American people in mind, appointed the best people that they could find to manage Iraq occupation and reconstruction, Katrina disaster and reconstruction response, the awarding of government contracts in Iraq, the Gulf coast post Katrina disaster, and in Homeland security and the "war on terror".

I can't make that case, because....when I follow the money, I see all the "no bid" contracts, the "planning" that seems at every turn, to make more of these contracts neccessary, the disappearance of $9 billion of Iraqi oil money, the near shutdown of post invasion Iraqi oil output that caused oil profits to transfer from the pockets of the American public into the pockets of Bush's campaign contributors, due to an unpredicted scarcity of oil....a scarcity that the invasion "plan" was predicted to reverse, after the ousting of Saddam and an ifusion of western capital and knowhow "poured in" to modernize and mazimize Iraqi oil production.

For us.....the average U.S. joe sixpack, everything that these folks have done, seems to have turned to shit....diplomacy, the war on terror, FEMA, the $2.5 trillion in new federal debt, the 20,000 war wounded troops, the direction of our paper currency, and our health and retirement benfits and prospects for high paying jobs for labor union members.

For them....and their rich supporters.....look at where they are, as far as their consolidation of political and law enforcement power....how much money they're making from all of these "setbacks", and how their tax obligation stacks up now, compared to when they took over on Jan. 20, 2001.

Too many gains for them.....and too many setbacks for the bulk of us Americans and the rest of the world (except for Israel) to be dismissed as coincidence or baseless conspiracy theory.

Iran is surrounded by U.S. ground troops and land based air force assets, the business folk closest to Bush/Cheney enjoy record profits and low taxes, and the POTUS enjoys the fewest checks and balances and the least constitutional restraint on his presidency than has been observed, with the possible exception of Lincoln and FDR. The oil industry enjoys record sustained prices...the kind that oil services companies like Haliburton can use to attract new investors and ramp up the
scale of their service capabilities. The stock, HAL was in the low 20's on the eve of the Iraqi invasion....it's in the $70's now!

I submit that all of the above "results" are by design, and that the key goals that result in the direction that money and power flow in, have all been achieved, according to plan. Our best interests were never planned for....just theirs!

Can you make an argument that the post Iraq invasion, the rebuilding of Iraqi oil production, the pacification and reconstruction of post war Afghanistan, Iraq, and post Katrina Gulf coast, not to mention the "war on terror", intelligence management "reform", energy and budget policy, port and "homeland" "security" have all just "gone wrong" due to poor planning or via misguided but via an administration sincerely interested in the "public good"? To do that, you have to tell us why the money and the power has landed where it has, with such precision, and consistemcy......

aceventura3 · 05-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It's not at all similar to what was happening in Oct., 1962.
I was in 5th grade, and I recall what happened clearly. Kennedy demonstrated that he was negotiating with Kruschev, in the best interests of the American people.

True - different situation. However, Kennedy stood firm. Reagan and the Cold War - different situation. However, Reagan stood firm. Bush and Iran - Bush is standing firm. I have no idea what you or Democratic leaders would do different than what Bush is doing, yet "we" use this has an opportunity to bash Bush.

Quote:

It is not possible for me to undermined Bush in his strategy with Iran. He does not represent my best interests, or those of my family, friends, or neighbors.

What are your interests?

I know this question is off point, but it might help me understand your point of view.

host · 05-31-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

True - different situation. However, Kennedy stood firm. Reagan and the Cold War - different situation. However, Reagan stood firm. Bush and Iran - Bush is standing firm. I have no idea what you or Democratic leaders would do different than what Bush is doing, yet "we" use this has an opportunity to bash Bush.

What are your interests?

I know this question is off point, but it might help me understand your point of view.

The thing of it is.......in just five years, so much damage has been done to the U.S. .....in every way that I can think to measure, that it seems past the point where it is even possible to get back to "normal". I think that the only option is to use the military to intimidate the rest of the world into coughing up their nulear weapons and long range missles, and allowing permanent U.S. monitoring, on the ground in the countries that formerly possessed those capabilities. My "interests" are supporting the purchasing power of U.S. paper curreny, "by any means neccessary", and the same goes for access to vital raw materials and for assuring a level of national security that the expenditure of $600 billion plus (annually) on military and intelligence infrastructure, should result in, to "justify" that expenditure.

My interest is in urging the government to make and execute these "desperate" decisions when the military is in the strongest position possible to potentially achieve success at carrying out a plan to intimidate all other countries into capitulation and submission........ which is ASAP, before the coming "crash" in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar erodes the our overall military capability. Either the currency is supported by a bold, "grand plan", or post currency crash, our military will be reduced to attempting to sieze raw materials that the currency will no longer have a value high enough to permit purchases in the stupendously large quantities that we were formerly accustomed to obtaining....

IMO, it is that bad....there is no way out of the rapidly accumulating federal treasury debt, or the trade debt, combined with growing budget deficits and the destruction of the progressive system of taxation that existed five years ago.

Here is a new anecdote of "how bad it is". A destructive "joke" of an executive administration, almost openly organizing a second "fake war", in just three years. I never thought I'd be reduced to writing anything similar to the "plan" that I outlined above, but these "bad actors" have reduced our options to "kill or be killed", and the problem is that they have brought on and accelerated the inevitable demise of the paper fiat currency and shattered the structure of checks and balances in our constitutional government, and their own credibility, so quickly that they have created a scenario of "pre-emption", that must be "scaled up" much more rapidly than they seem to be doing. It's akin to partially sawing through the branch that the U.S. currency, credibility, integrity, and force projection capability is standing on.
It is in my "best interest" now to leverage the military buildup that was achieved with borrowed money to compensate for the weakened financial, and diplomatic state, and the consequences that weakness has and will cause to future security and standard of living, by using the military to dictate terms of capitulation, and to make examples of, by use of conventional and nuclear weapons, of any country that decides to resist.

If the following is any indication, our "leaders" are too arrogant, too petty, and too "small time" in their planning and execution to do what I've described above, while there is still a reasonable chance of success:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000785.php
Iran Bamboozler Invited to White House as "Expert"
By Paul Kiel - May 31, 2006, 11:35 AM

Two weeks ago, Amir Taheri published an op-ed in Canada's National Post about an Iranian law that forced Jews to wear a yellow stripe. The story, reminiscent of Nazi Germany, quickly provoked outrage, but was just as quickly revealed to be a total <a href="http://thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12511">fabrication.</a> It also ran in the <a href="http://www.nypost.com/commentary/68850.htm">New York Post.</a>

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060530-4.html">Apparently</a> this is just the sort of reliable advice that President Bush needs. Yesterday, Taheri had a face-to-face with the President as one of a small group of "experts" on Iraq that visited the White House.

According to Press Secretary Tony Snow, the experts were invited to the White House for their "honest opinions" on Iraq.

Here is a report from the Canadian news source that was first to publish the newest slander designed to demonize Iran:

Quote:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...36ccc3&k=66789
Harper says Iran 'capable' of introducing Nazi-like clothing labels

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

Sunday, May 21, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to condemn Iran on Friday for an anti-Semitic law that appears not to exist.

Harper seized on a newspaper report that said Iran's hardline government would require Jews and Christians to wear coloured labels in public.

The prime minister couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report, but he added that Iran was capable of such actions and compared them to Nazi practices.

"Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Harper said.

"We've seen a number of things from the Iranian regime that are along these lines . . .

"It boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the Earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany."

But western journalists based in Iran told their Canadian colleagues that they were unaware of any such law.

And Iranian politicians - including a Jewish legislator in Tehran - were infuriated by the Post report, which they called false. .......

At least half the country hasn't accepted the truth about the Bush regime and it's "mouthpieces", such as foxnews and powerline blog....that they are incapable and uninterested in providing the accurate details neccessary to build an opinion "rooted in reality":

Quote:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/db39ec0c-f0...0779e2340.html
Bush and Blair meet Iranian opposition
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: May 31 2006 00:03 | Last updated: May 31 2006 00:03

........White House officials said Amir Taheri, a London-based former editor, was among a group of experts invited to discuss Iraq and the region with Mr Bush.

Mr Taheri is well known for his support of the war in Iraq and regime change in Iran.

Iranian officials have denied reports, which originated from a commentary written by Mr Taheri, that a new law passed by the Iranian parliament would require non-Muslims to wear special badges.

Mr Taheri says he stands by his report............

Quote:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014158.php
....Now, Mr. Taheri elaborates on what he knows:

Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it. The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation.

.....Given Mr. Taheri's past reliability on matters relating to Iran, I think this can stand as the best information we have, pending future developments.
Via Power Line News.

Peladinho · 06-15-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

He's definitely right about bush being a horrible christian.

Yea no shit.
Well what do I know Im neither

xepherys · 06-19-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about Ahmadinejad picking up the phone and calling Bush.

Isn't that what you would do if you seriously wanted to talk to him?

Errr... Is that how the cold war ended? Is that how the Berlin Wall fell? It's a country to govern, not a company to manage. A president doesn't pick up the phone and call another ('unfriendly') president to shoot the shit. Both of them are busy. They are on opposite sides of the world. That's not how political opportunities occur. You make many intelligent points, but you have to see the folly in the above quote.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad... but then again, I don't trust Bush either, so it's a crapshoot in my book. We're just the audience in a grand show... we have to sit back with our popcorn and pop and watch the plot thicken. *shrug*

aceventura3 · 06-19-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Errr... Is that how the cold war ended?

Yes. The begining of the end of the Cold War started through non-formal channels. The two leaders spoke by phone regularly. They actually began to like each other. They both faced opposition at home and in their own political parties. They found common ground in the "big picture" and let others workout the details. Two honorable men, who got the job done.

How did you think the Cold War ended?

05-12-2006, 06:31 AM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2438&l=1 links to the iran page(s) from the international crisis group--they provide an interesting, useful and short set of background papers on the situation that pits the americans and the iranians against each other at the moment. this: http://first.sipri.org/index.php is to a much larger set of databases on the international arms trade, both governmental and private, which has been, is and will remain a central motor in crises like this. the data is extensive and sobering, though it requires a bit of thought to access (the link is to an interface). the exchanges of "well this sounds like x [fill in the political position you do not like]" seems played out...the interpretations of this quite strange letter can only go so far without access to an expanded set of contexts...these contexts are not being given you on television or in the print press (in any systematic way), so maybe the above will help switch the terms of debate. in general, you have the official positions of states on questions of armaments and you have the realities of the international arms trade on the other. the latter operates both within and at cross purposes with the former. you have parallel general scenarios in the context of nuclear weapons development programs. the united states is the worlds largest armaments exporter--larger than all other countries combined. the us is involved heavily in the transfer of technologies related to nuclear power development, which is a preconidition for fabricated nuclear weapons. the general set-up----wherein your have state and private suppliers selling whatever they can to whomever they can----creates obvious problems of control. this makes state policies into little more than a set of shifting boundary conditions within international markets for weapons that exceed the control of states. this is a system that we have created, in general terms, and if you are worried about the consequences of it, the problem lay in the nature of the international arms trade itself--in the assumption that private firms should be allowed to seel weaspons systems direct, say....but the nature and extent of such markets is quite complex and requires more information than messageboards usually can accomodate to be discussed coherently. the above database can give access to information that coudl inform a more coherent discussion, one less predicated on illusions as to the roles of states within the trade and the relative importance of state actions/policies within that trade. suffice it to say that, in the present context (which, btw the bush people did not invent) all problems of proliferation of weapon systems, conventional and not conventional, can be seen as the chickens coming home to roost. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-12-2006, 10:26 AM	#45 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained? Mr President, I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established : Many thousands were killed in the process. Millions of indigenous people were made refugees. Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed. This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just from this part of His most excellent leader of the free nation of Iran's little letter, makes me believe he is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, and anyone who supports them. But in a way he is right, we should allow the middle east to settle their own land disputes. So my thinking is we should allow Israel to expand their borders as much as they can. And as for his carving out land theory, maybe he should look at a map from 100 or so years ago of a place called Persia and have him point out, Iraq as a nation, or maybe Saudi, hell even Iran as the borders are now. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-17-2006, 12:28 PM	#46 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Very interesting letter~ There where several good topics in it~ Very well laid out actualy ~ It was like a bash~reasoning~Sermon* btw my keyboard is messed up< thats why this is allweird> __________________ 0PtIcAl

05-12-2006, 03:18 AM	#42 (permalink)
rainheart Psycho	To be fair, I'm making a sweeping and unfair generalization to say that only the western world does it. That's complete bullshit and I admit that. But, frankly, the consequences from the people committing such an act here are really taking their toll, and although it would have to be controlled on a global scale, it would probably be best to start over here.

05-26-2006, 08:40 AM	#62 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I would welcome a clarification of the "why."