Supreme Criminal Negligence: Bushists Ignored Peace Overtures from Iran

[BurtWorm]

in 2003. According to Kevin Drum. Bushism wrecklessly endangers Americans and Iranians, just as surely as suicide bombers endanger themselves and their allies as well as their targets.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php


April 20, 2006

TALKING TO IRAN....What should we do about Iran? I have a suggestion, but first I need to relate a story that's gotten suprisingly little attention from the press. Perhaps they're too bored to pick up on it.

It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that "Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details."

What was that all about? Last January, Flynt Leverett, who worked for Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council, provided some initial clues:

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

In February, Newsday picked up the story:

The fax was one of a series of informal soundings that emanated from Tehran in the months after the United States invasion of Iraq. Iran's envoys to Sweden and Britain also began sending signals that the regime was ready to negotiate a deal, according to a former Western diplomat closely familiar with the messages. Iran was sending messages through other back-channels as well, according to Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

...."No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy," said Leverett. "Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance."

Three weeks ago, Gareth Porter added some more details:

Realists, led by Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.

Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."

As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's "grand bargain" initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.

A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asks to remain unidentified.

But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalls, because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it.

With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. After all, the administration's ideologues killed an opportunity to ratchet down tensions three years ago, and since then things have only gotten worse: Iran has elected a wingnut president, they've made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

That may well be the Bush administration's strategy, but ordinary horse sense suggests it shouldn't be anyone else's.

[EFerrari]

1. We should get this piece to all 50 Senators. So they know

THAT WE KNOW.

Thanks, BurtWorm.

[BurtWorm]

3. This kind of shit is why we impeach "presidents"

I'm enraged. :grr:

[EFerrari]

5. It's horrendous. But, what hasn't been in the last 5 years?

:nuke:

[BurtWorm]

14. Too true.

But sometimes the idiocy of Bushism is so perfectly represented in a single, glaring abomination that it shines a light on the rest of their shit, which usually blends into a monotony of plain badness. This one because it demonstrates what determined enemies of peace these know-nothings are.

[Supersedeas]

2. Dr. Condi brand of foreign diplomacy?

[cassiepriam]

4. Duh, no money in peace. No fat checks to Halliburton.

No cute flight suit for Shrub.

[Imagevision]

6. Bush wants regime change in Iran like he did in Iraq - where's the UN. ??

[Disturbed]

7. The PNAC plan must be followed.

Otherwise Shrub will be eliminated.

[rumpel]

10. Agree. These people are like bulldozers.

[Rose Siding]

8. Use your words, George

When pigs fly. Cheney's got the reins.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei fatwa against nuclear weapons

(origninally posted by me on another forum on 20 Apr 06)

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. They carry almost as much weight as sacred scripture

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August. Even if other mullahs or ayatollahs would disagree or make a contrary declaration - Ayatollah Khamanei's decision would over ride them and would be the final word in matters of the Iranian state and to any Shiite believers within Ayatollah Khamenei's domain which would include almost all Iranian Shiites.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran - link:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

Iran-Nuclear-Statement
Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.

The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.

The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.

"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.

"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[rumpel]

11. saw it yesterday. thanks for the post.

keep repeating until it sinks in.
start & keep writing to the editors of MSM.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. yes that's the idea...if repeating lies long and loud enough works

maybe repeating truth long enough and loud enough works..

I hope people feel free to copy any info here on DU and circulate it far and wide

and shout it from the roof tops.........



http://www.dontattackiran.org

_____________


Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms

[Joe Fields]

12. This is not supreme criminal negligence....

This is the willful dismissal of a genuine diplomatic overture by a nation that Bush deemed part of the "Axis of Evil." It is clear now, from the contents of this document that Bush had his eyes set on war with Iran, no matter what.

You are correct, however, that this behavior is criminal. This proves that Bush lied to the American people when he passionately plead that his administration WAS pursuing all diplomatic avenues, and scoffed at the idea that he was bent on war as the first diplomatic move the U.S. would take toward Iran.