 The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović
US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire
Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog. We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Iran Offered Peace in 2003... (wanna guess what Bush did?)
oh so f**king predicable
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.
 Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
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.
[....]
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.
[....]
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."
[....]
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 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.
——— ——— ——— ——— ———
I'm not going to repost the whole thing, so just go read it for yourself....
'Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel' By Gareth Porter
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
|
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
other press
Friday May 26, 2006 00:33
by redjade
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (6 of 6)
Jump To Comment: 6 5 4 3 2 1The big question is- what will the US do about Iran? There are the hints of the possibility of bombings, etc. While I hate the Iranian government, the people don’t deserve the chaos and damage of air strikes and war. I don’t really worry about that though, because if you live in Iraq- you know America’s hands are tied. Just as soon as Washington makes a move against Tehran, American troops inside Iraq will come under attack. It’s that simple- Washington has big guns and planes… But Iran has 150,000 American hostages.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_riverbendb...34749
Iran is perhaps the only unambiguous winner in the new situation in Iraq, and its foreign minister was basking in the glow on Saturday. On Friday, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari defended Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear energy program. That can't be what Washington was going for in backing the new Iraqi government.
[....]
[Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr] Mottaki reaffirmed that Iran had committed $1 billion in aid to Iraq, and would cooperate in the area of energy production. Mottaki also sent a letter to the tribunal judging Saddam Hussein with a list of charges against him.
Issues the Iraqis brought up with the Iranian official included the need for better border control to stop unauthorized entry of Iranians, as well as combatting weapons smuggling and drug smuggling. The Iranians in turn complained about the infiltration of Iran from Iraq of terrorists from the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) guerrilla movement. Saddam had allowed this terrorist group to establish a base in Iraq, in order to use it to harass the Iranian regime. Although the State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization, the Department of Defense appears to be giving it free rein in Iraq.
go read the rest at...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/iran-cleans-up-in-iraq-....html
Worse than that, 'Democratic' and 'Sovereign' Iraq says that the USA will not be allowed to attack Iran from Iraq!
This puppet might just have a mind of its own!
——— ———
Iraq supports Iran on nuclear development
Chicago Tribune
archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/miscrandometc/browse_thr...ac0cb
Speaking during a visit by the Iranian foreign minister to Iraq to congratulate the new Iraqi government formed a week ago, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq's new government "is a friendly government to Iran."
"Iraq definitely will not be a place to threaten Iran from," Zebari said at a news conference in Baghdad, with the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, standing at his side.
[....]
Mottaki's visit took him to the epicenter of American power in Iraq, the heavily fortified Green Zone, which is guarded by the U.S. military. Most Iraqi ministries are based there, along with the U.S. Embassy, which is housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace.
Speaking less than a mile from the embassy at the Convention Center, where Iraq's new government was sworn in last week in the presence of U.S. officials, Mottaki warned that Iran would retaliate against any Arab country that facilitated a U.S. attack against Iran.
[....]
He said he thought it doubtful the U.S. would attack Iran because America "was the one that was defeated" the last time it went to war. But, he added, "because sometimes wise people are not the ones in charge of taking decisions in America … we are prepared for any eventuality."
The comments underscored Iran's confidence in its relationship with the new Iraqi government, which groups representatives from all the major factions in Iraq but which is dominated by a coalition of Shiite religious parties who have close ties to Iran.
[....]
The U.S. proposed the talks late last year amid growing concerns about Iranian interference in Iraq, where the rising power of Shiite militias has contributed to increasing violence.
When asked about allegations that Iran is supporting some of the militias, Zebari said he had raised "all the concerns" in his discussions with Mottaki.
Though Iraq supports Iran's right to develop "peaceful" nuclear energy, it does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Zebari said.
"Iraq respects Iran's desire to have nuclear power, but we don't want any of our neighbors or friends to have weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Iran: The Gulf Between Us
Flynt L. Leverett
- Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Published in the New York Times, January 24, 2006
As the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.
[....]
• ....In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan....
• ....In the spring of 2003 .... the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences.... [discussed and blogged above]
• ....in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed....
Read the rest at
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20060124.htm
Juan Cole writes....
Recognition of Israel within 1967 borders, pressure on Hizbullah and the Palestinians to moderate, signing the additional protocols of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it was all there for Bush's taking.
What did Bush do?
He reprimanded the Swiss embassy, which takes care of US affairs in Iran, for daring to forward this proposal to Crawford on the Potomac.
Why?
Why?
Bush and his various constituencies (the military-industrial complex; the Christian Right; the Likudnik Lobby; and Big Oil) do not want peace with Iran.
How relieved they must have been when they managed to freeze out President Mohammad Khatami, who was trying to bring Iran back into the international community and reduce tensions.
How delighted they must have been when the world class buffoon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad succeeded Khatami and the hard liners strengthened their grasp after the Bush administration had done what it could to sabotage the Iranian reform movement.
Now Bush has Iran right where he wants it, in the sites of an ICBM.
....now go read the rest by Juan Cole at...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/iran-offered-recognitio....html
Gareth Porter's upcoming article
(pre-emptive internet release today - printed on trees on 06.06.06)
Neoconservatives Strike Back
The post-9-11 period was the most promising moment for a U.S. opening to Iran since the two countries cut their relations in 1979. But neoconservatives had no intention of letting the engagement initiative get off the ground, and they were well-positioned to ensure that it didn’t.
The main drama around Iran policy in late 2001 was played out in the White House, where the drafting of the State of the Union message was under way and where the neoconservatives held sway. The inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” was at first opposed by then–National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, because, as Hadley told journalist Bob Woodward, Iran, unlike Iraq or North Korea, had a “complicated political structure with a democratically elected president.” But Bush had already made up his mind; regime change was the goal.
[....]
In December 2001, Feith secretly dispatched Franklin and Rhode to Rome to meet with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the shady Iranian arms dealer in the Iran-Contra affair, and other Iranians. Administration officials later told Warren P. Strobel of the Knight Ridder media chain that they had learned that among those Iranians were representatives of the Mujahadeen e Khalq (MEK), a paramilitary organization Saddam had used for acts of terror against non-Sunni Iraqis and Iran.
——— ——— ———
What da' MEK?!
The Iran War Buildup - MEK 'Contras' ready for action (Aug 02, 2005)
http://indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71275#comment...17100
Where do you think those 200,000 AK-47s went? hmmm?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75964
——— ——— ———
[....]
Bush’s axis-of-evil speech was followed by public charges and press leaks from the administration that Iran was deliberately “harboring” al-Qaeda cadres who had fled from Afghanistan. In fact, the Iranians had made a serious effort to cooperate with Washington on al-Qaeda, according to Leverett. When the administration requested that the Iranian government send more guards to the Afghan border to intercept al-Qaeda cadres, Iran did so. And when Washington asked Iran to look out for specific al-Qaeda leaders who had entered Iran, Iran put a hold on their visas.
much more at...
Burnt Offering
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=V...11539