May 2003 Iranian Offer

[Tom Odom]

New York Times
April 29, 2007
Pg. WK13

Diplomacy At Its Worst

By Nicholas D. Kristof

In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the U.S. for settling our mutual disputes in a “grand bargain.”

It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I’ve placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.

Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you’ll see that what the hard-liners killed wasn’t just one faxed Iranian proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials — which makes me ache for my country.

This article is from Kristof's blog but you can see it all on the Ebird from 29 April.


Tom

[120mm]

It is my opinion that any lasting peace in the Middle East will NOT be the result of an Israeli-Palestinian solution, but rather a US-Iranian detente. We have created a de facto "pocket superpower" by knocking out Iraq as a polity, leaving only Iran. So now, I think it may be time to start eating the sh*t sandwich we've created, hold our collective noses and to build bridges with Iran.

[bourbon]

Book Reveals Details of Iran’s Diplomatic Outreach to Israel by Marc Perelman. The Jewish Daily Forward, Aug 08, 2007

A soon to be released book details previously unknown backroom contacts between Iran and Israel in 2003, when Tehran was pushing the Bush administration into entering comprehensive diplomatic negotiations.

In “Treacherous Alliance,” Trita Parsi, an adjunct professor at John Hopkins University and president of the National Iranian American Council, contends that shortly after Iran proposed a “grand bargain” to the United States four years ago, Tehran made a similar offer to Israel during an academic meeting in Athens.

[redbullets]

Originally Posted by 120mm

It is my opinion that any lasting peace in the Middle East will NOT be the result of an Israeli-Palestinian solution, but rather a US-Iranian detente. We have created a de facto "pocket superpower" by knocking out Iraq as a polity, leaving only Iran. So now, I think it may be time to start eating the sh*t sandwich we've created, hold our collective noses and to build bridges with Iran.

Spot on.

Cheers,

[Ken White]

Khameini? Council of Guardians? Ahmadinejad and the Pasdaran? The Majlis?


The Iraniha aren't even talking to each other all that well.

Nor are they quite at the pocket superpower stage yet. That's not to say we shouldn't talk; just that no one should expect much.

[redbullets]

Maybe not, but they're sure enjoying a good run mucking up the plans of the sole remaining non-pocket superpower.

Cheers,

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by redbullets

Maybe not, but they're sure enjoying a good run mucking up the plans of the sole remaining non-pocket superpower.

Cheers,

They've been screwing with us since 1979. We encouraged it for over 20 years. They are a little more pushy now than they were,say, 10 years ago but not much. Not half as pushy as they were 25 years ago. Hezbollah has been tweaking us and Israel (among others) for that whole time, nothing new there.

They are messing with us in Iraq, true and which was not the case earlier but at some cost to themselves and they can't afford to lose too much there. Biggest possible worry is what they might contemplate doing here...

[cmetcalf82]

Ken,

Well I agree with you that Iran has been messing with us since 1979 I would argue that their direct involvement in Iraq and likely Afghanistan is quite a bit more aggressive than in the past since US soldiers are dying in the dozens each month based on their support to militias.

This does not preclude us from talking to them but must be kept in mind as we enter those discussions. Based on the recent details as reported in the major newspapers here in the US I am not sure how directly we are addressing their continued support for those organizations fighting in Iraq. Maybe it will require more than just arresting a couple of "alleged" Al Quods members to truly get the Iranians attention.

[Ken White]

we are just nearby now and thus are an easier target. Their influence in the area of Afghanistan where we are operating is insignificant. That of course is not the case in Iraq but the various factions who take potshots and pop IEDs at us would do so in the absence of any Iranian help.

As for a couple of Al Quds folks; there's quite a bit more to it than that.

We have been playing games with North Korea since 1953; both Kims played us like a fiddle. We've been doing the same thing with Iran since '79 and both Khomeini and Khameini have done almost as good a job as the Kims. Only in the last year have both nations come to realize that we are not playing that way any more. They won't quit, dreams of the Persian Empire and the greatness of Darius and Cyrus still occupy their imagination. They are great hagglers and will keep trying but they're a long way from being a major problem. In the ME, what is public makes little real difference -- it's the behind the scenes stuff that counts.

The salient thing being that one of the greatest insults one can give an Iranian is to call him and Arab -- the fact that the Arabs know this does not endear the Iraniha to them. The fact that, like the special hatred reserved for the Israelis due to their winning of all the previous wars, a special dislike is reserved for the Persians who in the long ago, tended to do the same thing. Only in the Gulf War did they not prevail, Saddam, badly outnumbered almost whipped 'em -- and that lack of competence hasn't been fixed.

The Iraqis (Shia AND Sunni) will cooperate with Iran to an extent, and vice versa, my cousin against my friend and such but they aren't going to get in bed together.

[Rex Brynen]

The difficult thing in dealing with Iran is the complex, divided, and often opaque nature of the decision-making process, especially on national security issues. During the Khatemi period it wasn't unusual to see the IRGC (Revolutionary Goards) and MOIS (Ministry of Intelligence and Security) running off and doing things that both the President and Ministry of Foreign Affairs people had no idea of. Even now (with a hardliner as President) the MFA and the IRGC/MOIS seem to running entirely different policies in Afghanistan.

Ahh, the foreign policy challenges caused by an ideological leadership, large national security establishment, bureaucratic politics, and a government system based on a complex system of constitutional checks and balances

Back in the Khatemi days, and through 2001-04, I think it probably was possible to do a deal with Iran on shared strategic interests. Now I doubt it (although its still worth engaging in dialogue).

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

...
Ahh, the foreign policy challenges caused by an ideological leadership, large national security establishment, bureaucratic politics, and a government system based on a complex system of constitutional checks and balances
. . .

If MacKay and Hillier have their way, you, too can have a large national security establishment. Then we'll all three have all those things.

[marct]

Originally Posted by Ken White

If MacKay and Hillier have their way, you, too can have a large national security establishment. Then we'll all three have all those things.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about that happening here Ken - after all, remember the real definition of "Official Bilingualism" - illiterate in both official languages. We'll end up spending all of the new money translating meeting notes .

[Ken White]

we can only plead stupidity. Or is it cupidity? I forget. We forget. They forgot?

Hmm, that may be part of the problem...

[bourbon]

Originally Posted by bourbon

Book Reveals Details of Iran’s Diplomatic Outreach to Israel by Marc Perelman. The Jewish Daily Forward, Aug 08, 2007

Dr. Parsi’s book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States has since gone to print. Parsi was working for Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) at the time and was the intermediary between Ney’s office and the White House. Rep. Ney was chosen by the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran because he spoke Farsi and had spent time in Iran, lesser achievements of Ney’s include championing “Freedom Fries” in 2003 and a 2006 fraud conviction related to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

The Victor? By Peter W. Galbraith reviewing Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi. The New York Review of Books, Volume 54, Number 15, October 11, 2007

Parsi has recently published three articles of interest:

Iran and Israel: the Avoidable War, By Parsi, Trita. Middle East Policy, 10/02/07

Long Division, by Trita Parsi. The American Conservative, September 10, 2007

The brewing confrontation with Iran isn’t just about nukes or neoconservative ambition. It’s about regional hegemony.

Iran, the Inflatable Bogey, By Dr. Trita Parsi. Rootless Cosmopolitan, October 10, 2007

" But Netanyahu went beyond just lowering the rhetoric. He tried to reach an understanding with Iran though the help of prominent Iranian Jews[12], he stopped Israeli attacks on Iran within international organizations[13] , he arranged for meetings between Iranian and Israeli representatives at European think tanks[14], and he encouraged Israeli parliamentarians to reach out to their Iranian counterparts at meetings of the Inter-Parliamentarian Union. At one point, he even sought Kazakh and Russian mediation between Iran and Israel. In December 1996, Kazakhstan’soil minister, Nurlen Balgimbaev, who enjoyed excellent ties with Tehran, visited Israel for medical treatment and was approached about arranging a dialogue with Iran to discuss ways to reduce tensions between the two countries. [15]

None of his efforts bore any fruit, though. Iran’s dismissal of Israel’s conciliatory signals convinced the Netanyahu government that just like in the Iran Contra affair, Tehran only wanted to mend fences with the U.S. and had no real interest in rebuilding its ties with Israel.

Therein, of course, lay the real threat from Iran.

The Israelis saw danger in a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, believing this would inevitably see the U.S. sacrifice some of its support for Israel in order to find a larger accommodation with Iran, in pursuit of U.S. strategic interests in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. Iran would become emboldened and the U.S. would no longer seek to contain its growth. The balance of power would shift from Israel towards Iran and the Jewish State would no longer be able rely on Washington to control Tehran. “The Great Satan will make up with Iran and forget about Israel,” Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University in Israel noted. [16]
Israel’s relative regional importance to the U.S. would decline with a warming of ties between Washington and Tehran. "

[bourbon]

"The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know", By John H. Richardson. Esquire, October 18, 2007.

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?", By Fareed Zakaria. NEWSWEEK, Oct 20, 2007

The one time we seriously negotiated with Tehran was in the closing days of the war in Afghanistan, in order to create a new political order in the country. Bush's representative to the Bonn conference, James Dobbins, says that "the Iranians were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were also critical to our success. They persuaded the Northern Alliance to make the final concessions that we asked for." Dobbins says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, "looked down and rustled his papers." No reply was ever sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad.

[goesh]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

"Revolutionary Guards commander warns Iran will respond to any attack
By ASSOCIATED PRESS "

[bourbon]

The Spy Who Wants Israel to Talk, By David Ignatius. The Washington Post, November 11, 2007.

Flynt Leverett, All or Nothing: The Case for a U.S.-Iranian “Grand Bargain”. Statement to the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, November 7, 2007

[goesh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21821342/

Iranian spared from noose for alleged sodomy
21-year-old had been scheduled to hang for ‘crimes’ committed at age 13 "

So, this then can translate into vague presumptions that Iran is indeed amenable to diplomacy and maybe standing down from nuclear arms ambitions? The graphic picture shows industrial cranes and hemp as being their preference for public execution, which only collaberates ideas of Iran being in a state of belligerence and hostility towards the West. I think Iran's national priorities far exceed this display of kowtowing to human rights/gay activists.

[Rex Brynen]

Iran indeed has an awful human rights record (and, sadly, its far from the only one in the region).

I'm not sure that this translates into a generalized inability to bargain, reach, or keep agreements, or find common areas of strategic concern. (I don't think its possible now in Iran, but I would argue that the possibility existed in the Khatami period, when the idea of a grand bargain was put on the table.)

[goesh]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

JPost.com » Iran » Article
Nov 16, 2007 0:11 | Updated Nov 16, 2007 7:50
Israel: IAEA's report 'unacceptable'
By YAAKOV KATZ "

tic-toc, tic-toc - this should come as no surprise to anyone I suppose.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

"Meanwhile, Britain's Foreign Office said Friday that talks planned for next week to discuss hardening sanctions over Iran's nuclear program have been postponed, and officials were trying to set a new date.

A European Union official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Chinese could not attend due to scheduling problems. China, along with Russia, is opposed to a hardening of sanctions against Teheran.

"Negotiations will be taking place over the next few days" to set a new date for a meeting, said a Foreign Office spokesman, on condition of anonymity in line with policy.

Talks between political directors of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany were planned for Monday, and had been expected to take place in Brussels.

Russia's Itar-Tass news agency reported the meeting had been postponed because China had refused to attend.

China's London embassy was not immediately available to comment on Friday."