READ THIS ON IRAN: "Diplomacy at Its Worst" - Nicholas D. Kristof

All the dirty secrets about the disaster that the Bush Administration has been for America have been flooding out of the closet of late, but this one is particularly timely now, on the eve of Condi Rice's trip to Egypt:

Iran to Attend Iraq Summit; Rice Says Meeting is Possible
By Challiss McDonough
Cairo
29 April 2007

Iran says its foreign minister will attend a conference aimed at stabilizing Iraq later this week in Egypt. The U.S. Secretary of State will also attend, and says it is possible that she could meet with her Iranian counterpart. VOA Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo...

...U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who will also attend the conference, said she would not rule out a possible meeting with Mottaki on the sidelines of the summit. She spoke Sunday to the CBS television program Face the Nation.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addresses the media in Oslo, Norway, 26 Apr 2007
"I would not rule it out," said Condoleezza Rice. "We will be there not to talk about U.S.-Iranian issues, (but) how Iraq's neighbors can help to stabilize Iraq. And I will not rule it out."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-29-voa8.cfm

The key line: "We will be there not to talk about U.S.-Iranian issues, (but) how Iraq's neighbors can help to stabilize Iraq." God forbid the U.S. Secretary of State should discuss U.S.- Iranian issues with the Iranian Foreign Minister. That would be radical.

It’s time to kick it up a notch in the fight to inject sanity into United States policy toward Iran. Too many anti-war activists are acting complacent about this one, and I’m not sure why. I hope it’s not because we already have our own hands full opposing Bush on Iraq, because if that’s the case we are far weaker than I want to imagine. I simply refuse to believe that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time because… well just because.

And it would be just as disturbing to think that there still may be peace advocates who underestimate the capacity of this Administration to shout loudly AND swing a big stick, no matter how unpopular the war in Iraq is or how overextended our military might now be. We are “led” by a government that needs enemies as a rational to rule, and either by accident or design an attitude like that eventually leads to armed conflict. That attitude already torpedoed a historic chance for peace with Iran, as well as progress on a host of issues affecting the Middle East, back in May of 2003, according to this recently published column by Nicholas D. Kristof:


Diplomacy at Its Worst
April 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the U.S. for settling our mutual disputes in a “grand bargain.”

It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I’ve placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.

Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you’ll see that what the hard-liners killed wasn’t just one faxed Iranian proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials — which makes me ache for my country…
http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/diplomacy-at-its-worst/#more-2950

A purported copy of the actual 2003 Iranian document can be seen at MidEast Watch, which also reports in depth on the aborted negotiations that were said to have occurred then:
http://www.mideastweb.org/iranian_letter_of_2003.htm

The Bush Administration from day one opted to ferment regime change in the Middle East over any negotiated accomodations with governments it found distasteful there. For them diplomacy was just another word for “surrender or die”. Though Condi Rice will soon be heading off to conduct "diplomacy" in Egypt, where she just may bump into Iran’s foreign minister, nothing much has changed. Her current more nuanced message for Iran can be boiled down to “heed our demands or face the consequences”.

What might those consequences be? A key U.S. foreign allie in the U.S. “War on Terror” has a pretty good hunch, and he definitely sounds worried . Read what Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf had to say last week:

SARAJEVO: President Pervez Musharraf said a possible US attack on Iran would be a “terrible mistake”, in an interview published here on Friday.

“It will be a terrible mistake if President George Bush orders an attack against Iran,” Musharraf told Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. “I’m concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause) turbulence in the region,” he said, warning it would spark “radicalism”.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=7479

An American attack on Iran might, in fact, spark “radicalism” inside of Pakistan which, as we all know, already possesses nuclear weapons and more than its share of Islamic extremists willing to use them. If President Musharraf is concerned about the likely fall out from an attack on Iran, perhaps we should be also. And if President Musharraf is already speaking out against an American attack on Iran, perhaps we should be also. I am renewing and redoubling my efforts in support of StopIranWar.com at, you guessed it, www.stopiranwar.com and I hope you will join with me in doing so.

People now seem so concerned with "other things," that I wonder if they are thinking that war with Iran isn't going to be much of a problem, that it will somehow "work itself out,' etc. Or are people afraid if they sign the www.stopiranwar.com petition, that it will mean they are being "disloyal" to their candidate?
I challenge all DUers who have not signed the petition to sign it, and sign it now. But, hey, maybe it will all work out?

Actually she is probably somewhat less resistent to diplomacy than most of the cabal at the top of the Bush Administration. What concerns me though is the stance taken by Democrats on this, or rather the lack of a stance. Alarm bells went off for me when Democrats yanked language forcing Bush to come to Congress before attacking Iran OUT of their Iraq funding legislation.

It's at the very bottom of the page that is opened when you click on the mideast web link. Read it and think about everything that could have been avoided. A sleeper Al Quaeda agent elected President of the United States could hardly have done more damage occupying the White House than George W. Bush. Yeah that comment is over the top, but not by nearly enough. It's too damn close to being true.

Seems to me there's WAY too little attention paid to Iran, and way too much attention paid to every little blip in presidential "horserace" polls.

those wild eyed extremists are actually running in favor of war with Iran! What scares me is that they obvviously felt comfortable taking an extremely hawkish position regarding Iran. I swear to God it sounded exactly like what Bush was saying about Iraq in 2002.