LibriumArcana.Games

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was pressed yesterday on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity to improve relations with Iran in 2003, when Tehran issued a proposal calling for a broad dialogue with the United States, on matters including cooperation on nuclear safeguards, action against terrorists and possible recognition of Israel.

Although former administration officials have said the proposal was discussed and ultimately rejected by top U.S. officials, Rice, who was then national security adviser, said she never saw it.

"I have read about this so-called proposal from Iran," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, referring to reports in The Washington Post and other publications last year. "We had people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you,' lots of people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you.' But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, 'We're ready to recognize Israel.' . . . I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) cited a former Rice staff member, Flynt Leverett, who has publicly discussed seeing the proposal when he worked at the White House.

"Why should we accept the administration's analysis today that it is correct to yet again not engage with Iran when administration officials at the time now have concluded -- at least this one and one or two others -- that the administration was wrong?" Wexler asked Rice at the hearing.

Rice's comments add a new level of complexity to an issue that has generated debate among foreign policy experts: Did the Bush administration forgo a chance to pursue a dialogue with Iran shortly after the fall of Baghdad, when U.S. power seemed at its height?

The Iranian document, conveyed to Washington via the Swiss Embassy, listed a series of Iranian aims for potential talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests," according to a copy that has circulated in Washington and was verified by Iranian and U.S. officials.

In the document, Iran offered to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, including possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of road maps on disarmament, countering terrorism and economic cooperation.

Rice dismissed yesterday the earlier comments of Leverett.

"First of all, I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about, quite frankly," she said. "Maybe I should ask him when he came to me and said, 'We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it.' "

Leverett said yesterday that he became aware of the two-page offer, which came over a fax machine at the State Department, in his waning days in the U.S. government as a senior director at the National Security Council, but that it was not his responsibility to put it on Rice's desk because Rice had placed Elliott Abrams in charge of Middle East policy. "If he did not put it on her desk, that says volumes about how she handled the issue," he said yesterday.

Abrams is currently the deputy national security adviser in charge of the Middle East and democracy promotion. An NSC spokeswoman, speaking on behalf of Abrams, said yesterday that Abrams "has no memory of any such fax and never saw or heard of any such thing."

Former State Department officials have said that they saw the Iranian offer and used it as a key element in a 2003 memo to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell proposing that the United States pursue a "grand bargain" with Iran. The Iranian offer was attached to the memo, but Powell did not forward the memo to the White House, officials said.

Last June, Rice appeared to confirm, in an interview with National Public Radio, that the White House had received the memo. "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," Rice said. State Department officials at that time did not dissuade reporters from interpreting her comments as referring to the 2003 fax.

Leverett said the Iranian offer is "embarrassing and politically difficult" for the administration now that it has rejected calls for a dialogue from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, has confronted Iranian agents in Iraq and has expanded military assets in the Persian Gulf.

Leverett charged in December that the White House orchestrated an effort by the CIA to demand significant deletions in an opinion article he had written on Iran policy on the grounds that the material was classified. "The single biggest recision" concerned his description of the Iran's 2003 offer, he said yesterday.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We've seen what agreements do in regard to nuclear ambitions with North Korea; nothing at all, nothing whatsoever.

I will acknowledge that they might very well reign in Hezbollah, as the Iranians are not anti-democratic as such, and that this might give us breathing room in our shambolic Near Eastern policy; but let's not be too enthusiastic about what this might have led to, hmm?

And, regardless, it would have just been a false hudna with the infidel, and violated in a few years. That might have been advantageous to them, or to us, but it would have been in no way permanent. They will break it, if for no other reason than to take advantage of the impending, and highly inevitable, breakup of the state in Mesopotamia formerly called "Iraq".

SirNitram wrote:
A common misconception, perpetuated by those who'd like to scuttle Clinton's successes. The Agreed Framework said not a word about uranium enrichment, only plutonium production, and there's never been evidence plutonium was manufactured between the time the Framework was set in place and the time Bush scuttled it upon finding out about the uranium.

Now you know, and I'm not repeating the other half of the catchphrase.

Terrorists and their leaders are free to act as such; easily targettable leaders of nations are likely to be less frivolous. Especially since the continuation of the agreement would be the main thing holding Iran's economy out of the crapper it's in now.

Beleiving that national leaders behave according to the most suicidal of fanatics is a foolish presumption; a national leader gets there by wanting to preserve their personal power, otherwise, they'd strap something explosive to themselves.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Then would you agree that the agreement itself was nonetheless pointless since no attempt was made to include Uranium? Because nukes go off with either HEU or Plutonium in them, and I said that the agreement failed to prevent the DPRK's nuclear ambitions, nothing about the agreement itself failing. There is a rather big difference there.

The best chance the Iranians have for economic recovery is a continuation of the massive amounts of Chinese investment they've seen in the past few years, of which there's no guarantee if it ceasing if the economy collapses, because the Chinese are pursuing their strategic needs to secure as many supplies of oil as possible, and the main reason for the decline in the Iranian economy is the decay in oil exports based on the failing infrastructure of the oil fields, rather than any actual bereft of available crude.

That's based on an atheist's understanding of religion, to be blunt. I have never believed the "cynical old men sending young fanatics" to die theory; everything I have read and studied on the subject reinforces the idea that the leaders of al-Qaeda, and for that matter, the top Ayatollahs of Iran, genuinely believe in all facets of Islam. They simply are part of a strictly rigid society which demands different roles for people. They don't strap explosives on themselves not because they're sane and cynical, but rather because Allah has mandated a leadership, so someone must be in charge. That Allah allows successful leaders of Jihad to acquire wealth and resources is simply a boon for obedience to Allah in this world.

The idea that the leadership of a country is cynical and amoral is, IMO, a development of modern democratic society. In a society where there is a very established and rigid hierarchy, having true believers in the system is much, much more likely.

SirNitram wrote: Not really, for the simple fact that the DPRK's nuke design.. The faulty Pakistani gun-type, I beleive.. Requires plutonium, and all indications from the test indicated they used plutonium. Years of enriching uranium and they wait to restart plutonium production to make a bomb? It suggests that they knew they weren't getting anywhere with HEU.

I would note, however, that ensuring eternal stasis of nuclear-equipped powers is folly, and I did state 'delay' in reference to a treaty with Iran for that reason. Further slowing their development is always a worthwhile effort, as each extra day allows more options.

Indeed. The sanctions, however, recently imposed by the UN, have caused economic chaos, including a spike in basic foodstuffs. Iran is plummetting and it's the main reason their bellicose President is sabre-rattling for all he's worth, when his actual authority is just economic matters.

A lifting of sanctions would mean that American and other 1st world corporations would swoop in with investment dollars, which would definately revitalize the nation and ensure a level of symbiotic bondage with Iran. Ultimately, the more your economies intertwine, the less likely war is, because it hurts your business.

This fails on multiple levels, including thinking me an Atheist(I've been a Deist since before I got on the 'net.).

Ultimately, it's based not on the cynicism of a non-Theist, but on observations. An evangelical leader buys the services of his male prostitute meth dealer, to use but one recent, topical example, and you expect me to beleive leading a religious movement makes you as big a fundie as those strapping bombs on?

There's no sign the Ayatollah's want to hurry to their 72 virgins they think might be waiting, especially as they've been making efforts to shut down Ahmadinejad, both in rhetoric and in his ties to the nuclear program. Albeit the latter could be because he made an entire cascade explode.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Not really, for the simple fact that the DPRK's nuke design.. The faulty Pakistani gun-type, I beleive.. Requires plutonium, and all indications from the test indicated they used plutonium. Years of enriching uranium and they wait to restart plutonium production to make a bomb? It suggests that they knew they weren't getting anywhere with HEU.

Normal gun-type bombs use HEU, Nitram. Furthermore, they are so reliable that we did not even test them in 1945 before using them. The Hiroshima bomb was simply used. The DPRK has the uranium for 8 - 9 HEU devices according to Chinese sources, all of which are probably in place and ready to go. The design of a gun-type device using HEU is so reliable it doesn't need testing.

I would note, however, that ensuring eternal stasis of nuclear-equipped powers is folly, and I did state 'delay' in reference to a treaty with Iran for that reason. Further slowing their development is always a worthwhile effort, as each extra day allows more options.

Oh, I know. The only viable way is to reduce nuclear war to levels where it's no longer threatening to civilization by being able to intercept a sufficiently high percentage of the warheads.

Indeed. The sanctions, however, recently imposed by the UN, have caused economic chaos, including a spike in basic foodstuffs. Iran is plummetting and it's the main reason their bellicose President is sabre-rattling for all he's worth, when his actual authority is just economic matters.

A lifting of sanctions would mean that American and other 1st world corporations would swoop in with investment dollars, which would definately revitalize the nation and ensure a level of symbiotic bondage with Iran. Ultimately, the more your economies intertwine, the less likely war is, because it hurts your business.

That's not true, as WW1 demonstrates--as late as 2002 we'd only just exceeded, as a world average, the level of interconnectness among industrial economies that there was in 1914. The theory that economic connections reduce the liklihood of war has been refuted by history, on the field of battle. Exactly similar arguments were made before 1914 by the intellectuals of the period, and they were proved wrong; I suspect those today will also soon find such a bloody refutation at hand.

This fails on multiple levels, including thinking me an Atheist(I've been a Deist since before I got on the 'net.).

I didn't say you were an atheist, I said that was an atheist thought-perspective. And admit it, you've been around a lot of atheists.

Ultimately, it's based not on the cynicism of a non-Theist, but on observations. An evangelical leader buys the services of his male prostitute meth dealer, to use but one recent, topical example, and you expect me to beleive leading a religious movement makes you as big a fundie as those strapping bombs on?

In a traditional society, yes. Religion in America has no connection with tradition--it's a marketing scheme. The old social roles it filled are exclusively the province of traditional society, and the leaders of religion in traditional society are entirely different from those in modern society, coming from different backgrounds, and fulfilling different social roles. Modern American Protestantism isn't really any sort of real religion--and we're damn lucky for that.

There's no sign the Ayatollah's want to hurry to their 72 virgins they think might be waiting, especially as they've been making efforts to shut down Ahmadinejad, both in rhetoric and in his ties to the nuclear program. Albeit the latter could be because he made an entire cascade explode.

No, but that doesn't mean their foreign policy is based on a calculus which is rational to us, however, though it would be rational to their own theological viewpoint on the universe.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: That's based on an atheist's understanding of religion, to be blunt. I have never believed the "cynical old men sending young fanatics" to die theory; everything I have read and studied on the subject reinforces the idea that the leaders of al-Qaeda, and for that matter, the top Ayatollahs of Iran, genuinely believe in all facets of Islam. They simply are part of a strictly rigid society which demands different roles for people. They don't strap explosives on themselves not because they're sane and cynical, but rather because Allah has mandated a leadership, so someone must be in charge. That Allah allows successful leaders of Jihad to acquire wealth and resources is simply a boon for obedience to Allah in this world.

The idea that the leadership of a country is cynical and amoral is, IMO, a development of modern democratic society. In a society where there is a very established and rigid hierarchy, having true believers in the system is much, much more likely.