WH is demanding now what Teheran offered 4 years ago

[NV1962]

Behold the mother of all flip flops...

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.

(source)

Proving that the Axis of Evil spins along the Vortex of the Veep...

[blm]

1. I remember that specific issue as part of the 2004 campaign. Corpmedia didn't seem

to have any grasp at all on the import of that debate and let it pass without any examination of Bush's inaction.

[NV1962]

2. But it does put the lie to the drive to attack Iran now, doesn't it? (n/t)

[blm]

3. absolutely.... at a Dem event in SC last July, Kerry told the crowd that Iran

is KNOWN to be FIVE YEARS away from nuclear weapon capability. He said don't buy any urgency the WH will try and sell. The US has at least four years to use diplomacy and get it right.

[blm]

4. kicking for you, NV - this is a serious issue that isn't getting enough eyeballs.

.

[NV1962]

6. Thanks - it's eerie how the pressure for war on Iran is ignored

Even suggesting that there are such pressures is made suspect - sadly not only among the neocons, as that thread demonstrates.

It's both amazing and profoundly disturbing how easily a substantial issue like a disastrous drive for warfare can be distracted and ignored.

I can't help wondering whether it's ultimately a good thing that the current mess in Iraq is unfolding, dragging the US down in its failure. A very cynical argument for that is that every generation "needs" a reminder of the incredibly costly nature of imperial warfare; apparently, looking at Iraq, the lessons of Vietnam haven't been learned.

It's beyond me how more and more widespread criticism of Iraq in the US can coexist with virtual silence in the face of an extremely dangerous plan to attack Iran.

That plan should be denounced loud and clear for what it is: seditious.

[blm]

8. Modern Americans have been conditioned to react to personality politics over substantive

issues and detailed debate.

Many on the left claim to be immune to the media manipulation, but, few really are. This is like when the Downing Street Memos came out - deadly serious implications, but the left didn't pound it through enough so even many Democratic lawmakers let it slip by with little notice. I think that was a dereliction of duty.

[Zodiak]

14. You are right

I often hear the great wisdom of CNN dispensed on this board by those who would claim to be "smarter" than the rest of us. They buy the narrative and do not understand why so many of here do not...and just chalk it up to us being "wacky conspiracy theorists" and "far left loonies".

Some quickly realize that they have been sold a bill of goods when they spend enough time here...it is refreshing to watch them transform. Still, others cling to that narrative like a life-line.

[blm]

16. WHOA....you might want to check out this article about Iran, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2.

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA20Ak01.html

[HuffleClaw]

5. it took the 'real' media HOW long to bother to report this?

what a disgrace

[NV1962]

7. The point is that the BBC has only NOW seen proof of Iran's offer

That's why that story I linked to makes mention of specifics offered by Teheran; it's also why the article mentions that their offer was "snubbed" by the same WH that is now raising the specter of military action against Iran, with the "justification" of demanding what Teheran already offered but was rejected by the WH. It boggles the mind.

So, kudos to the Beeb for reporting on this - I don't see the media in the US jumping on this stunning case of hypocrisy.

[blm]

15. Heh...when you find real media in this country, let us know.

The day I see real reporters like Robert Parry and Jonathan Landay being interviewed on broadcast news networks is the day I'll have hope for the 'real' media.

[NV1962]

9. Shameless self-kick for the evening crew (n/t)

[annabanana]

10. IMPORTANT HERE!

Bookmark this thread, and don't let it slide down the rabbit-hole. This is CONTEXT! This has to be drummed up into corpomedia consciousness!

How many opportunities has this administration deliberately ignored in its quest for the windfall oil grabs afforded by the instability??

[blm]

11. you've got the good eye, anna.

.

[underpants]

12. So the WH can come out and DEMAND this and when they get it

tell the American MSM about this big WIN???? is that what they are doing??

[annabanana]

17. I don't think they want any such thing... I don't think they wanted it

then.
I think they want to attack, that's what I think.

[generaldemocrat]

13. I wanna hear what Powell has to say about this. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

18. Additional article and info here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3142320&mesg_id=3142320


snip>>

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.

snip>>

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.


Burnt Offering
By Gareth Porter
Issue Date: 06.06.06

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/26/iran_israel_and_nuclear_weapons.php

[blm]

19. Chaos by design - they didn't WANT Iran's help because they WANTED perpetual war.

.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Yes perpetual war and regime change in Iran, unfortunately

this topic has not received the attention it deserves IMO. :shrug:

[NV1962]

21. It could also be a ploy for leverage in Iraq

That's why I decided to translate an interview with al-Sadr, so as to give a sadly all-too rare glimpse into the guy who's foremost standing in the way of a split of Iraq into two or three smaller countries (i.e. a Sunni and a Shiia part, with or without a Kurdish one, depending on the strain placed on US relations with Turkey).

The conclusion of that interview is very, very interesting: al-Sadr would ultimately go along with that. Which begs the question: why still insisting on attacking Iran?

It's disappointing how, when such reports come out from either the Beeb or others in the US with solid feelers in the Pentagon -- like Gen. Clark, who let the cat out of the bag with the Bush admin's plan developed immediately on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, to successively invade not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but five other countries as well, among them Iran! -- and yet it's still overlooked, misunderstood and ignored as a significant signal of severe trouble ahead.

History has a way of educating the narrow-sighted, but in this case the price could be truly catastrophic.

This madness has to be stopped.

[NV1962]

22. Cross-link to topic on war plans for Iran that escalate way beyond "surgical strikes"

Kudos to El Supremo for putting more meat on this developing collection of skeletons.

Unbelievable.

[Lone_Wolf]

23. Because they really aren't interested in a political solution...

The Bush Administration is just trying to make it appear like they are exploring all options.