Former Powell Chief of Staff: Cheney Passed Up Iranian Peace Bargain in 2003
The BBC reports,
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.
[…] 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.”
The myopia infecting the US’s policy toward Iran is as depressing as it’s self-destructive. What’s missing from every discussion about Iran is how diverse Iranian society is and how there is no “one” Iran, just like there is no “one” Arab street (Yes, a Moroccan Arab has as much in common with an Iranian as your average Pole does with an English bloke. The irony is that Pro-Palistinean, anti-Israeli propaganda is the main remaining device available for despotic, authoritarian Arab rulers to distract their respective countries’ disenfranchised citizens’ from demanding democratic change and instead focus on the external, “kabal”-controlling Zionist power.)
The United State’s failure to engage Iran in substantial public diplomacy, let alone strategic international diplomacy beyond demonizing Iran plays straight into the most fanatic, destructive strains of Iranian politics. Overall, the Iranian political scene is more dynamic that the US system with over ten serious parties vying for votes. Of course, the democratic voices will be extinguished for at least a few years if Bush engages another pre-emptive (most likely while we’d lead to another little WWIII. But at least we will be able to fall back and remember the retro-justification for pre-emptive attach=regime change=democracy middle east.
I’m all for an aggresive policy to contain extreme fundamentalists and the US should employs its big stick. But to ignore the power of soft diplomacy, let alone the concrete ways to empower, strengthen and engage democratic iranian forces is the epitome of folly.
The Iranian regime is not sincere about negotiations. Why, even the present anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric is a chess move designed to soften Western attitudes and to release some of the 26-n-under steam building up in the universities towards the regime’s radical agenda.
Sure, we can engage in diplomacy with Iran.
But, by no means, are they sincere participants in wanting regional peace. Any offers towards this end are best treated as temporary moves towards a much larger goal: regional hegemony (first political, then economic, and last military)
I’m all for diplomacy (*when it is real*), but it’s important to remember: We have nothing the present Iranian regime wants on a large, macro international scale. They have their agenda, and nothing will stop them short of war or a quick palace coup (both increasingly likely in equal measures by each month passing).
[email protected]
Why is it legitimate for Israel to pursue regional power status, but not Iran? They have lost much more as a society after the Western backed invasion of their country in the 80s than Israel did in its wars.
I’m all for a regional balance of power that acts to restrain Israel’s ability to use unilateral force against its enemies, and forces it to use negotiations instead.
Well, if you lived in places like Qiryat Shemona, then you got a good taste of just what type of “balance” an Iranian mullah-centric regional power has to offer the inhabitants of Israel.
We should have already learned that when people talk about destroying the Jews, take them seriously.
I don’t think there needs to be a ‘balance’ against Israel, but rather we need to defind ourselves and pray that our enemies will one day recognize our right to exist in peace.
I think hoping for a Iran as a positive counterbalance to Israel is playing with fire.
in what way is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” a call for genocide against the jews?
what is it in the rube goldberg drawing that comprises the jewish mind that causes statements like “israel must give up its jewish exclusivity and become a state for all its citizens” are heard as “the jews must be blotted out from under the sun”?
am i the only man on earth who recognizes that ahmadinejad is counting on our propensity to conflate these two things in order to drag us into a larger version of this summer’s war?
I apologize for repeating this, but these are basic facts that must be understood prior to any discussion of Iran.
Number 1 – Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. These are two ethnicities with different histories, different cultures, different languages, and different appearences. Yes, in the past Persia has occupied or controlled arab countries, and arabs have conquered Persia, but they have retained their distinction.
Number 2 – The, by far, dominant religion in Iran is Shia` Islam. Shia’ Islam is a different, distinct religion from the more prevalent Sunni Islam. Think of Protestants versus Catholics, but not in the American pluralist model, but more in the thirty years war model. The two religious groups have fought for most of the past 1300 years, and each has alternately dominated and/or persecuted the other. In Iranian consciousness, the most recent Sunni-Shia` battle was the Iran-Iraq War which was understood as yet another Arab/Sunni invasion.
The majority of the Arab world is Sunni, the only significant exceptions being in Iraq and Lebanon (think Hizbollah). In that reagrd, the recent participation between Sunnis and Shia`s in regard to Israel is remarkable.
3 – Yes, Iran is a theocracy. That also means it works on a confessional system. Each religious group is given a certain number of seats, and to run or vote for that seat you need to be am ember of good standing within your confession. So, using this tool, thh Ayatollahs can axe many candidates within the majority Shia` confessional. But, still, the Parliament and the President are elected freely and openly. Also, in this regards, Iran, as opposed to many other Islamic countries guarantees religious freedom for Jews and Christians, who are also both represented in parliament (I do not know anything about Sunnis)
I apologize for the lecture, but these are just such basic facts taht need to be kept in mind when discussing this unique and fascinating country.
… had the Iranians made the overtures to BOOG Powell, I think the response would have been more positive.
Iranian Democracy
I don’t think anyone is demeaning the Iranian experiment in “Islamic Democracy”. But, when an *unelected* council of clerics has *absolute* power over a government, well, that kinda negates the whole popularly elected parliament effort, and when citizens can be arrested and tortured (without any official charge against them), that tends to dilute the rule-o-law, too.
Let’s remember the Canadian journalist arrested and killed.
Or the bloggers.
Or the newspaper editors.
Democracy is noble, but without the foundation of Rule-o-Law there is nothing but electoral cotton-candy/candy-floss being presented.
The Iranian Traps: Set
Yes, sometimes an enemy lays rhetorical traps that, when improperly responded to by the target inflict substantial diplomatic losses. And, yes, sometimes an enemy is diplomatically savvy enough to even make the target country initiate a war that they themselves need/want. Iran is just such an enemy.
Iran has its eyes set on a regional civil conflict, sparked by Israel, and (they hope) resulting in Iran remaining the sole regional power.
That’s no balance and no world any of us want.
Shi’ia vs Sunni
If you want to a regional superpower you need to become a unifier of differences. Syria and Iran have several strategic partnerships, and they are growing stronger by the week. Syria is roughly 75% *Sunni*.
Mobius – had that been his only statement, sure I would agree with you.
I have sympathy with anyone who tries to stop a rush to war based on misunderstanding.
But, sponsoring a conference on Holocaust denial is a pretty loud and clear message to me. Funding Hezbollah does too. Seriously, if you believe that the man is not a dangerous Anti-Semite then you need to make a stronger case, at least for my benefit.
You actually believe this garbage? Ever hear of disinformation?
in what way is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time†a call for genocide against the jews? sponsored a convention called “A World Without Zionism”. At this conference the PRESIDENT of IRAN encouraged the audience to work towards “A world without America and Zionism”. Are you arguing that Iran just wants some ideological “reeducation” of the Jewish community? And hey, maybe Ahmadinejad’ll be happy to safeguard American citizens–their country will dissolve and then they’ll just be warmly absorbed into a Greater Persia; so then the world reallywill be without America but with Americans you see….
This is really tortured thinking and it might be more productive for all if you tried applying Occam’s Razor to the situation instead. While perhaps not foolproof in its simplest form, it certainly tends towards more reality-based and rational conclusions than what I’m reading above.
in what way is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time†a call for genocide against the jews?
Mobius I’m sorry but what exactly do you think Ahmadinejad is calling for here? A Knesset no-confidence vote against “the regime” of Ehud Olmert and new elections?! Come on man! The Iranian government sponsored a convention called “A World Without Zionism”. At this conference the PRESIDENT of IRAN encouraged the audience to work towards “A world without America and Zionism”. Are you arguing that Iran just wants some ideological “reeducation” of the Jewish community? And hey, maybe Ahmadinejad’ll be happy to safeguard American citizens–their country will dissolve and then they’ll just be warmly absorbed into a Greater Persia; so then the world reallywill be without America but with Americans you see….
This is really tortured thinking and it might be more productive for all if you tried applying Occam’s Razor to the situation instead. While perhaps not foolproof in its simplest form, it certainly tends towards more reality-based and rational conclusions than what I’m reading above.
Why is it legitimate for Israel to pursue regional power status, but not Iran?
Well…Iran wants to annihilate other countries, for one… It produces transnational terrorism for another. But hey: the meek shall inherit the Earth! Let us conjure the Frantz Fanon within and grant 40 Rifles and a Rocket to the dark-skinned and dispossessed so those who insist on murdering us can finally kill enough of us to make us really feel it!
I’m all for a regional balance of power that acts to restrain Israel’s ability to use unilateral force against its enemies, and forces it to use negotiations instead.
I understand. You want Israel to be pushed into a position of weakness from which negotiated capitulation is the only way out. That’s an interesting solution…certainly a positive one from the Arab League perspective.
Eric, Israel practices terrorism against a civilian population every day of the year. It has punished civilian populations to achieve diplomatic and military gains since… forever. (the attempt to drive out the civilian population of South Lebanon comes to mind, as well as the use of cluster bombs to make return and reconstruction more difficult.)
The occupation – a disaster – is strengthened by the notion of ‘Israeli freedom of action.’ Would that Israel would end it sooner, rather than later! But it seems, the occupation will end only when it’s the last resort, and out of weakness. It’s a shame…. so many opportunities have been missed. But I’d rather a bully force Israel out of the territories on its knees than a safe and secure Israel choosing to remain a bit longer while waiting for some kind of better deal. While waiting, we saw Jordan replaced by the PLO; PLO replaced by Hamas; and finally, the threat from Hamas bolstered by Iranian nukes and a powerful Hizbullah (which we helped to create.)
One suspects waiting more is a strategic blunder to be included in the next edition of Tuchman’s ‘March of Folly.’
As an Israeli, I feel far more threatened by Israel’s refusal to end the occupation right fucking now than by Iranian nukes.
I dont think a weakened israel being forced out of the territories helps anyone. the message hezbollah and hamas got from unilateral withdrawals is that Israel will retreat given enough fire. it encourages terrorism. The best way out of this is already there in international law — make bilateral agreements to end the occupation, dont get driven out or retreat, or irredentism is encouraged.
Israel wanted to settle the west bank and stay there forever. No matter how it leaves, it will be because the right wing in Israel, extending to the Labor Party which started the settlement program, has been defeated. Negotiations at the final stage will not change this fact: Greater Israel is an overextension of Israeli power, and it is being limited not by ethics, morality, conscience or good government, but by the shattering of dreams when faced with reality.
The opportunity to exit gracefully has passed. Now we just need an exit. We will not have our honor, or increased security, but at least the bleeding will stop. What’s the rule? When you find yourself in a dark hole, first stop digging. Withdrawal is the same as stopping to dig, no matter the short term consequences.
“But I’d rather a bully force Israel out of the territories on its knees than a safe and secure Israel choosing to remain a bit longer while waiting for some kind of better deal.”
If you really feel that Israel is as horrible as you say I can understand why you would want it to be weakened and defeated.
“As an Israeli, I feel far more threatened by Israel’s refusal to end the occupation right fucking now than by Iranian nukes.”
So you feel more threatened by an internal policy debate than by nuclear incineration…? Interesting. I’ve often heard from people on the right that Leftists hate Rightists more than they hate their own nation’s enemies. I guess that might true.
“Now we just need an exit. We will not have our honor, or increased security, but at least the bleeding will stop.”
I don’t get it: if surrender will not even bring Israel improved security then how can you say the bleeding “will stop”?
Eric:
1. I am more afraid of an existing harm than a hypothetical threat. Iran has no nukes right now, and if it did (it will btw) that doesn’t translate into an instant holocaust. Remember the cold war?
2. The worst damage inflicted by the occupation is that it prevents the emergence of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and the surrounding Arab states. However, this leftist is not under the illusion that any sort of unilateral withdrawal will convert Hamas into lovers of Zion overnight. My point is that ending the occupation is key for any future peace settlement, but at this stage it probably won’t end all the violence right away.
I’m okay with rebuttals, but not with misunderstandings….
Um… I really care about Israel. FYI.