Monday, June 19, 2006

US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003

Officials in George Bush's administration turned down an Iranian offer in 2003 to negotiate with the US, recognise Israel and cut off ties with Palestinian terror organisations.

Of course, in 2003 Bush was planning on invading Iran immediately after he finished with Iraq, so the offer was rejected out of hand.

However, as we all know Iraq turned out to be more of a handful than Georgie expected and turning down the Iranian offer will now come back and bite him on the ass, especially as Iran now have a nuclear capability that they did not possess at the time they were offering talks.

Former administration officials said that in failing to consider the overtures made by Teheran, the US missed an opportunity to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability. Flynt Leverett, who was at that time a senior director of the National Security Council, said that the proposal was "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for US-Iranian rapprochement."

"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," Leverett told the Post.

The document details Iran's aims: ending sanctions, development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran also agreed to discuss a number of US demands: full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" on terrorism, coordinated efforts in Iraq, cessation of "material support" for terror organizations, and accepting the 2002 Saudi solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Never one to miss an opportunity to spin the administration's line, step forward that eternal optimist Condoleezza Rice:

"What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who when Teheran faxed its proposal was serving as Bush's national security adviser.
Yes, they wanted a one on one with the US and.... that's a bad thing?

"Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in," Rice said.
Ah right, now that they know the US is tied down in Iraq and can't possibly invade them, makes this a better time to force them to stop enriching uranium. How's it going so far, Condi?

If she wasn't such a dull little lady I'd be convinced she was on smack.

Click title for full article.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 comments:

theBhc said...

Hi Kel,

I did a piece on this awhile back and discuss the likely provenance of initial US refusal to consider the Iranian proposal. I think it came down to that most likely of figures, Cheney

The Cheney Parade of War

Kel said...

Thanks for that Bhc. Wouldn't you just know that Cheney was behind the whole thing? The man who voted to keep Nelson Mandela in jail seems to be behind every action to stomp on peace wherever it rears it's head.

And I loved your article's reference to Rumsfeld's logic regarding "audio" submarine detection. Why don't people get it about Rummy? The old buggers off his head and has been for years.