Iran's commitment to destroy Israel is questioned

rota · #1 (**permalink**) 05-25-2006, 12:42 PM

This happened in 2003 so it doesn't even take into account Iran's attempts to open talks with Washington recently. I might add the Iran sent the letter and Condalisa Rice admitted she responded negatively to it before she even read the thing.

Just which side is really committed to destroy the other side anyway? What does it cost Bush to talk to these people? I'm sure that the possibility that millions of people might be killed because he wouldn't simply listen to them, means nothing at all to an ego maniac like Bush. Is his Zionist leash that tight around his neck?

Quote:

Published on Thursday, May 25, 2006 by Inter Press Service
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.

The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."

The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".

That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.

In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".

Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.

Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.

An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".

The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm

Sadistic-Savior · #2 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

I might add the Iran sent the letter and Condalisa Rice admitted she responded negatively to it before she even read the thing.

Irrelevant even if true...her criticism was valid. They were trying to circumvent normal diplomatic channels. If they were really interested in peace or compromise, they would use legitimate channels. Instead of some retarded behind-the-scenes letter.

Good goin Condi. Nice backbone.

Quote:

Just which side is really committed to destroy the other side anyway?

The side that is publically threatening to wipe people off the map. That seems obvious to me.

Please pay attention.

Quote:

What does it cost Bush to talk to these people?

Time.

If we dont believe they are sincerely interested in negotiation, what is the point of negotiation?

Quote:

I'm sure that the possibility that millions of people might be killed because he wouldn't simply listen to them, means nothing at all to an ego maniac like Bush.

Millions of people will only be killed if they refuse to comply with our demands....and if we do nothing about it.

They have already threatened a war of aggession. So any threats of more deaths are empty. They've already blown their wad.

rota · #3 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Irrelevant even if true...her criticism was valid. They were trying to circumvent normal diplomatic channels. If they were really interested in peace or compromise, they would use legitimate channels. Instead of some retarded behind-the-scenes letter.

"normal diplomatic channels"?. The U.S. has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the Shah was overthrown. So Bush feels more comfortable threatening to use nucleur bunker busters instead of picking up a phone or even writing a letter? Who made us the worlds police?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

The side that is publically threatening to wipe people off the map. That seems obvious to me.

After they were threatened to be nuked by Bush. Anyway crap thrown out for public consumption is nothing. The real business in done in secret behind closed doors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

If we dont believe they are sincerely interested in negotiation, what is the point of negotiation?

So the "Deciders" wench can know whats in a letter before she even opens it and reads it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Millions of people will only be killed if they refuse to comply with our demands....and if we do nothing about it.

Heil Hitler!!!! Attention! it is futile to resist our overwhelming power, submit now and conform to our agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

They have already threatened a war of aggession. .

Yeah what's wrong with those ragheads? They should do like us and threaten "wars of non-aggression".

.

Sadistic-Savior · #4 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

"normal diplomatic channels"?. The U.S. has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the Shah was overthrown. So Bush feels more comfortable threatening to use nucleur bunker busters instead of picking up a phone or even writing a letter?

And threatening to wipe Israel off the map is the perfect way to open diplomatic negotiations eh?

Quote:

After they were threatened to be nuked by Bush. Anyway crap thrown out for public consumption is nothing.

If they really believe that, then any chance for diplomacy is already doomed to failure.

Quote:

The real business in done in secret behind closed doors.

Maybe thats how they do it in Iran...where the government doesnt answer to the people. Doesnt work that way here. We take threats from politicians very seriously.

Quote:

So the "Deciders" wench can know whats in a letter before she even opens it and reads it?

The contents were irrelevant, for reason I have already explained. She would have been perfectly justified throwing it in the garbage.

They can show us they are sincere through their actions...not some empty words in a meaningless letter.

Quote:

Me: Millions of people will only be killed if they refuse to comply with our demands....and if we do nothing about it.

Heil Hitler!!!!

I prefer "Resistance is futile".

Compromise is irrelevant. They know how to appease us if they are sincere. Otherwise, we will assume the worst and proceed accordingly. They have only to look at Iraq and Afghanistan to know that we mean what we say.

If they force our hand, the international community will not stop us. The UN will not stop us. And they (Iran) cant stop us.

Quote:

Attention! it is futile to resist our overwhelming power, submit now and conform to our agenda.

Non-democracies have no right to exist anyway. We only negotiate when we have to, not because we respect their sovereignty. We only pay lip service to the idea that non-democracies are sovereign...our actions in Iraq should make that ridiculously clear.

rota · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

And threatening to wipe Israel off the map is the perfect way to open diplomatic negotiations eh?

they threaten Israel and we take offense? Why is that? Sounds like Israel's problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

If they really believe that, then any chance for diplomacy is already doomed to failure.

So both sides talk smack and act like little kids and that a good enough reason for you to not talk and let a possible WW111 start? Peons have to pay the price in their blood because two (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s are too good to talk to each other? Iran has made the effort but Washington just refuses to do anything. The blood will be on Bush's hands if this happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Maybe thats how they do it in Iran...where the government doesnt answer to the people. Doesnt work that way here.

What planet do you live on? Everything important is done in secret in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

We take threats from politicians very seriously.

And Iran shouldn't? Bush threaten to nuke Iran with Bunker Busters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

The contents were irrelevant, for reason I have already explained. She would have been perfectly justified throwing it in the garbage.

World War 111 might be starting soon and she would have been justified to throw the unopened letter in the garbage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

They can show us they are sincere through their actions...not some empty words in a meaningless letter.

I think you must be delusion. The U.S. isn't in the driver's seat here. You need to read some news, not he main media who won't tell you anything but other sources. The Taliban have reformed and have taken most of Afganistan over again. The U.S. is like the Soviets a few years back and only holding on to the main cities. Iraq is a total mess. The only place safe there are in the safe zones. Now that our army is used up you want to attact Iran who is being backed up by Russia and China.

The first sign that we are losing that war then what few allies we have over there will turn on us in a heartbeat. Pakistan and Turkey are not that tight with us. Israel? LOL. Give me a break. If they let loose any nukes you can bet every Arab nation will join into the fray against us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

They have only to look at Iraq and Afghanistan to know that we mean what we say.

Put up your Nintendo game armchair warrior. Those arab countries have been invaded for years and never give up. They will bleed us dry just like they are doing right now. The crusaders found that out the hard way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

If they force our hand, the international community will not stop us. The UN will not stop us. And they (Iran) cant stop us.

Well if you are so sure then why don't you just volunteer to go to Iraq or Afganistan? They can use the help I hear. Don't tell me you just talk tough and then let others back you up while you sit at home on the computer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Non-democracies have no right to exist anyway..

So you are saying the U.S. has no right to exist? We are a Republic not a democracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

We only negotiate when we have to, not because we respect their sovereignty...

Wow you are writing a check your chidren will have to pay if there is another generation.

nonsqtr · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 03:40 PM

... Ho's overtures to the US prior to the Vietnam War.

If we'd bothered to talk with the man, we could have saved thousands of lives, and perhaps even used him as a political instrument.

But no, the politicians were too stupid, as usual. Always consumed with "sending messages".

You negotiate on our terms, or else.

Oh, and don't bother to protest, we'll have you arrested if you try.

W and his idiotic imperial presidency....

Well, he's probably going to cost the Republicans control of the Congress this year. We'll see.

DuH2 · #7 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 03:52 PM

.....Hitlers offers of peace prior to the US entryin WWII.

If we'd bothered to talk with the man, we could have saved millions of lives, and perhaps even used him as a political instrument.

BUT NOOOO the politicans where stupid always consumed with "sending messages"

You accept our terms or else.

Oh, and don't bother to protest, we'll have you arrested if you try.

Churchill and his imperialistic nonsense...

Well he and the Allies will probably be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed for winning the war anyway...We have already seen.

Lets sell Iran the nukes and tell Israel yeah we decided it would be easier and cheaper to let them just wipe you out. Have a nice day

nonsqtr · #8 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

.....Hitlers offers of peace prior to the US entryin WWII.

If we'd bothered to talk with the man, we could have saved millions of lives, and perhaps even used him as a political instrument.

BUT NOOOO the politicans where stupid always consumed with "sending messages"

You accept our terms or else.

Oh, and don't bother to protest, we'll have you arrested if you try.

Churchill and his imperialistic nonsense...

Well he and the Allies will probably be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed for winning the war anyway...We have already seen.

Lets sell Iran the nukes and tell Israel yeah we decided it would be easier and cheaper to let them just wipe you out. Have a nice day

Your President is about to cost you control of the Congress.

Have a nice day.

DuH2 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 04:03 PM

Nope Democrats don't even have a chance of breaking even let alone gaining control.
Especially when the top issues are Terrorism, Iraq, and Immigration...all 3 BIG losers for the Democrats..beyond that its local elections not national.

Wildbore · #10 (**permalink**) 05-26-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rota";p=&quot

The real business in done in secret behind closed doors.

Maybe thats how they do it in Iran...where the government doesnt answer to the people. Doesnt work that way here. We take threats from politicians very seriously.

Rota was referring to diplomats talking over the phone or in a conference room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

And threatening to wipe Israel off the map is the perfect way to open diplomatic negotiations eh?

Oh no, a muslim wanting Israel off the map. LOL, what else is new.

President Ahmadinejad's didn't even call for violence against Israel, nor did he state he will use his dangerous under-construction nuclear power plants to "wipe" them. His statements were far from concerning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

If they force our hand, the international community will not stop us. The UN will not stop us. And they (Iran) cant stop us.

I find that hard to believe anyones hand will be forced, especially America's hand since your role is minimal. Anyways, if you are talking about an invasion, it would be relatively easy for Iran to stop America.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode