Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

bush rejected secret Iranian proposal for peace

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:32 PM
Original message
bush rejected secret Iranian proposal for peace
Edited on Fri May-26-06 03:34 PM by welshTerrier2
the following article appeared on the Inter Press Service News Agency website ... the scope of the Iranian proposal it describes is huge ... it covers virtually all of bush's anti-Iran talking points ... if the only stories Americans hear are about Iran developing nuclear weapons and aiding terrorists, we are rapidly heading for a catastrophic confrontation ...

our representatives need to get to the bottom of stories like these and help get the truth to the American people ...

when will leading Democrats realize that bush wants war in Iran and that he must be stopped NOW??? it's time to stop focusing and commenting on Iranian nukes and time to start focusing on the hawkish imperialism of the bush regime ... the REAL ENEMY lies in Washington, not in Tehran ...


source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33350

Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. <skip>

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)". <skip>

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.

read the full article here ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, and the Japenese wanted peace too
but they were ignored and the guys went to play golf as the ships cruised towards us and the planes were but a speck on the horizon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i'm not sure what point this is trying to make ...
history shows that the Japanese clearly intended to attack the US ... what basis do you have to suggest the Iranian offer is not sincere??

if nothing else, the offer to fully comply with IAEA inspectors should at least be recognized, until proven otherwise, as full compliance with UN demands for inspections ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I meant that Japan was sincere about it
too but had their ships lined up. I'm very positive Iran wants to avoid war but Chimp seems hell bent anyway and is just daring them to do something so we can have an excuse to attack.


As I recall with WWII the ambassador was made to wait passed the 1pm deadline to try to stop what was coming. See "Tora, Tora, Tora" (my fav WWII movie) and read some newer history on that. Tin hat? Maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. One thing I've always wondered
Edited on Fri May-26-06 03:46 PM by TheFarseer
What if we gave them all sorts of wind turbine technology and hydro geothermal etc. etc. I wonder if they would go for that instead of nuclear. The stumbling block seems to be we don't trust them to use nuclear for just peaceful purposes.

oh and the other half of it just seems like common sense, everybody recognizes everybody else's government and everyone pledges to not to fund terrorists or attack one another - now that wasn't so hard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. start with the premise ...
that bush and the neo-cons are seeking a justification to keep US military occupation forces encamped in the Middle East and you'll see why your proposal will never be made by the bush regime ...

btw, there are controls and methods that can be used to ensure that peaceful nuclear energy technology cannot be converted to weapons ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. That's why someone else needs to propose it
If, let's say, Ben Nelson proposes this and Iran acts interested, bush looks like a jackass for not pursuing it. Of course he could pretend to pursue it and say the Iranians are being unreasonable, but then we're just back where we started, no harm done. This is a win-win if someone just says it.

btw - no one will ever buy that peaceful nuke power can't go off in a suitcase in Manhattan. sorry, that's just the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "peaceful" nuclear power ...
let me preface this by saying that i am strongly opposed to the development of nuclear power in general ...

but to specifically address your concern about "dirty bombs" or weapons grade uranium becoming a bi-product of nuclear power production, consider the following article ... there have been numerous proposals to allow the Iranians to develop nuclear power plants that use "LEU" which is low enriched uranium which is generally considered as not convertible to weapons grade uranium ... this, combined with full oversight at the plants combined with the removal of spent fuel rods are considered by some countries to be "safe" ...


source: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04807.pdf

Nuclear research reactors worldwide use highly enriched uranium (HEU) as fuel and for the production of medical isotopes. Because HEU can also be used in nuclear weapons, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors program is developing low enriched uranium (LEU), which would be very difficult to use in weapons, to replace HEU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Iran has been on the PNAC hit list since before 9/11. There is no way
Bush would let them off the hook, no matter how many American lives or tax dollars it costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Interesting
As with all things with Bushco, you always want to know what they are not telling us. Now, we know. I'm sure there is much more to the story in between Bush's wild claims and this document. But there is no doubt that Bushco doesn't want peace with Iran. It would mean they would give up making too much money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC