PDA

View Full Version : On the other hand, "We don't talk to evil..."



Banquo's Ghost
01-18-2007, 12:30
If this proves to be true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6274147.stm), it would provide another low in the depths of stupidity plumbed so imaginatively by the current US administration.

It appears that Iran proposed a series of concessions and agreements in 2003 that included more transparency for its nuclear programme and helping stabilise Iraq after the invasion. It was rejected.


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

:no: :wall:


Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'


Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon.

Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.

The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons.

Geoffrey S
01-18-2007, 13:59
I'd like to see a few more sources on this, although it does sound like the Bush administration shot itself in the foot here. Even so loose an agreement would have allowed either side to show sincerity and build the basis of more lasting arrangements; and if it didn't work, no-one would be worse off and either side may have a legitimate claim to the other side not keeping to the deal rather than the hollow accusations of today.

Don Corleone
01-18-2007, 17:18
I'd need to see more support for the story then a single unnamed source in a BBC article (not exactly a pro-Washington venue), but I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't be surprised should this be proven to be true.

More and more, I'm coming to realize the administration doesn't seem to care for peace in the Middle East. Some simple things we could do that wouldn't cost us anything, they abjectly refuse, and thus ratchet tensions up even further.

I suspect war in the Middle East for a long time to come is just what the administration, particularly Cheney, is hoping for.

Banquo's Ghost
01-18-2007, 17:33
I'd need to see more support for the story then a single unnamed source in a BBC article (not exactly a pro-Washington venue), but I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't be surprised should this be proven to be true.

The source appears to be Lawrence Wilkerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson) who is not exactly Cheney's best friend, but was chief of staff to Colin Powell. His name is mentioned in the text.

And it does sound true-to-form. In 2003, Iraq was still going to be a cakewalk and Iran was next, so why would they need any concessions?

EDIT: I've found a link to the broadcast programme "Newsnight" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm). Click on the Problem of Mujahadeen link. I haven't watched it yet, so it might not be the relevant article.

Don Corleone
01-18-2007, 17:44
Well, it sounds like Wilkerson is in the Wesley Clark/Jim Webb hawkish side of Democratic politics. I'm not saying what he said wasn't true, just that he does have an agenda in saying it.

Who knows what to believe anymore. In any case, I found a link to an intersesting group, the New America Foundation.

Lemur
01-18-2007, 17:47
I'd need to see more support for the story then a single unnamed source in a BBC article (not exactly a pro-Washington venue), but I'm sorry to say, I wouldn't be surprised should this be proven to be true.
I'm sorry I don't have any linkage, but I remember this story being reported about a year ago, with multiple sources. State went so far as to confirm that there had been messages from Iran in '03. Anyway, unless I take the time to find backup, I know it's all chaff, but I do remember this cropping up.

Don Corleone
01-18-2007, 18:03
Already beat you to it, Lemur. It would appear there is a reason none of this is coming to surface in recent publications. The White House has co-opted the CIA's Secrets Review Panel for their own purposes. According to this (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php)article and explanation from one-time NSC & CIA official now White House critic Flynt Leverett, the White House forces the CIA Secrets Review Panel to censor any public criticism of the White House's policies on Iran, though it's intended purpose is to ensure that no state secrets are being revealed.

Cheney, abusing power to silence his critics? Naaah, couldn't be...

The more I learn about the political forces at work in Washington, the more frightened I become. In 6 years, this administration has made a mockery of conservatism and frankly, has run itself like a bad caricature of Republicans by Democratic hacks. I keep telling myself 'well, Kerry surely would have been worse', but that mantra is no longer as comforting as it once was.

spmetla
01-18-2007, 20:32
I read a book called The Persian Puzzle which mentioned this as well. Supposedly the Iranians couldn't understand the sudden shift in US policy seeing as we worked together in Afghanistan and were planning against Iraq. The "We don't talk to evil..." is definately a bad foriegn policy. Imagine if Reagan didn't talk to the "evil empire".

Crazed Rabbit
01-18-2007, 22:50
*Bangs head on wall*

Wasn't the whole point of beating up on the bad guys to get them to come to the table and talk, like Ghaddafi?

Gah. It will probably be depressing to see how this turns out.

Crazed Rabbit

BigTex
01-18-2007, 23:12
I'm sorry I don't have any linkage, but I remember this story being reported about a year ago, with multiple sources. State went so far as to confirm that there had been messages from Iran in '03. Anyway, unless I take the time to find backup, I know it's all chaff, but I do remember this cropping up.

I've heard about this too quite awhile ago. Old news, and very sad news. Wouldnt be the first time a president shot himself in the foot like this. Castro and JFK would be a good example.


Wasn't the whole point of beating up on the bad guys to get them to come to the table and talk, like Ghaddafi?

Generally yes we were beating on them to come to the table. But apparently they had already been there and gone.

This is as bad as any other time we've been to the middle east. Even the marines had trouble in Tripoli in the early 1800's. Honestly if were going to invade a country at least annex it, forget the installing governments and freeing them.

War with Iran is coming, and it seems as rude as we were it's justified.

BDC
01-18-2007, 23:26
War with Iran is coming, and it seems as rude as we were it's justified.

America has failed in Iraq.

Iran is bigger, more populated, better prepared, and its people, whilst not keen on the government, won't run away as quickly as the Iraqis did.

Invading Iran would be a disaster.

Watchman
01-18-2007, 23:32
Honestly if were going to invade a country at least annex it, forget the installing governments and freeing them.Eh, that's so last century. Doesn't work either, these days.

Scurvy
01-18-2007, 23:33
Invading Iran would be a disaster.

it will never be invaded, so no worries :2thumbsup:

GoreBag
01-18-2007, 23:50
Eh, that's so last century. Doesn't work either, these days.

Come on, give retro a chance.

Watchman
01-18-2007, 23:52
That stuff's so out, you turn into an international pariah for trying it. No kidding.
...on top of the irate natives making your life interesting.