Iran Offered To Help US In Iraq in 2003
January 18th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |“We don’t talk to evil.”
That, apparently, is the response given to US State Department officials by the office of Vice-President Cheney regarding an Iranian diplomatic letter allegedly sent to the US in 2003, according to BBC’s Newsnight program. In the letter, Iran offered to end their support for Hamas and Hezbollah, support efforts towards stability in Iraq, and open the doors on it’s nuclear program wide enough for the world to see inside. In return for these concessions, Iran asked that the US end sanctions against the country, end hostility towards the Iranian government and in Iraq, and assist in disbanding an Iranian rebel group that had been given refuge in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.
Amazingly (or perhaps not so much so, since we are talking about the Bush Administration) these concessions are very similar to those Washington is demanding from Iran today as they ratchet up their rhetoric towards war.
At the time the letter of concessions was presented, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and his staff considered the Iranian plan to be worth following up on, but were rebuked by the VP’s office, meaning the missive probably never even made it to the President.
But consider the “we don’t talk to evil” attitude and you can see that this administration was (and still is) saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. America has continued to work with Saudi Arabia (home of most of the 9-11 hijackers.) We have continued to work with Pakistan (sheltering many former Taliban and al-Qaaeda fighters.) We have held talks with North Korea. Hell, we’ve even normalized trade and relations with Vietnam. It’s hard to understand the hard-on this administration has with Iran and their reluctance to engage in diplomacy, especially when the olive branch was being offered to them. And don’t start in about the hostage situation of almost 30 years ago. It’s time to move on.
What’s more, the Iranian rebel group, the People’s Mujahadeen (aka MEK and/or MKO) is officially listed by the US as a terrorist organization. You’d think that the president’s own words about hunting down terrorists would have some teeth behind them. As we see, it’s mostly just lip service.
Imagine if America had acted then…no Israeli-Hezbollah summer war. Maybe no Hamas led government in Palestine. No more mystery about Iranian nuclear projects. No escalation of Middle East unrest and bloodshed. And perhaps even a concluded Iraqi campaign. Instead, the Bush adminsitration’s refusal then (and still today) to engage Iran through diplomatic channels, despite being told from many fronts that this is the best chance to help stabilize Iraq, has allowed those things to come to pass, and is now moving headlong towards increased conflict in the region, including possible war with Iran.
It would seem that at every turn, Bush and his group of lackey’s have done all they can to promote unrest and warfare, incense the average Muslim world, refuse assistance when offered and ignore any rational advice that makes it through the ‘insanity filters.’
And they call others dangerous and evil?
[tag]Iran, US, Iraq, Middle East, BBC Newsnight[/tag]
9 Responses to “Iran Offered To Help US In Iraq in 2003”
By Paul Watson on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
The Iranian foreign office has denied this letter is genuine. How much worth you put in that is up to you, but denying a severe diplomatic rebuff ever happened to save prestige doesn’t sound implausible.
On the other hand, if they really were offering all that, then the Administration would have to be even more stupid and arrogant than they appear to reject it. Both are possible, of course.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Bushco was looking for a new Cold War and they got one. Iran is the latest arbitrary enemy in that war.
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Paul-
I hadn’t heard that update yet, but as you say, denying the rebuff to save face is not unheard of. I consider the BBC to be a pretty good source for information and would have to believe that they vetted this story as much as possible before airing it. Of course, mistakes can be made.
Interesting to note however, that Amedinejad was elected in 2005 so the letter would go back to the presidency of Khatami who was considered more ‘liberal’ and ‘western friendly’ than the current Iranian leader. That he would deny the letter was ever sent is hardly surprising as he favors warring rhetoric as much as Bush.
If BBC retracts then I suppose I will too. Until then, we’ll let this ruminate.
By SteveIL on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
ken,
Another person within the blogosphere (yes, my side) pointed something out regarding this as well, something along the lines of what Paul said. The fourth paragraph says:
The fact that the letter is unsigned is very illuminating, and may have been a prime reason for rejecting this “offer”; the government wouldn’t want to get involved in being duped by what it considers a very untrustworthy Iranian government. Besides, if this letter is true, why couldn’t the Iranian government stop funding terrorism, show the world they’ve stopped funding terrorism (verified by the US and other governments), and then make this offer? And if what Paul says is true, that the Iranians denied they sent the letter, this probably is nothing.
Let me add something. It could also be true that the Iranian government did send the letter, unsigned on purpose, because they didn’t want the news to get out to their own people that they were dealing with the “Great Satan” (the US does do covert radio broadcasting into Iran). Even before the Bush administration, leaks have been a problem and embarassing for the US government; but a tyrannical government such as the one in Iran, who tries to control as much information flow as possible, can’t afford (in their own eyes) to look bad. They would then have to retract their offer just to save face. This may also explain the denial. But I’m just speculating.
By windspike on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
I saw this report as well, Ken. Not speaking to our enemies only gets us more or an amplification of the same, now doesn’t it?
By Liberal Army Wife on Jan 19, 2007 | Reply
I never have understood the “i’m not talking to you”mentality. If you don’t talk to someone how do you know what they think, what they want? true, they may not tell you the truth, but I really think it can’t hurt to talk to another person/country. Understanding starts with discussion, doesn’t it?
LAW