Peace Averted; George Bush vs. Iran

[Tom Rinaldo]

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.

[DawnIsis]

1. If we attack Iran it would be the worst mistake that has ever been made

Don't know if any of you saw the History Channel Iran-Iraq War documentary but we are committing suicide if we mess with these guys.

Need like a million troops to even consider attacking Iran of course Bush will probably send 3.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. The neocons don't think we will need to invade Iran

They believe U.S. air power can knock out first Iran's command and control capacity, and then Iran's nuclear facilities, and that will be that: Iran's crazy leaders humiliated, and problem solved. They are more likely to believe that a "successful" American air attack on Iran will discredit Iran's government and bring about it's downfall, then they are to believe it would set off an escalating cycle of revenge against America. They are as blinded by their own ideology regarding Iran now as they were with Iraq in 2002, but regardless, in their world view we are on a certain collision course with Iran and it is better to attack now than wait. They will be very tempted to do so before Bush leaves office.

[DawnIsis]

3. Crazy, plain crazy. HUGE MISTAKE the Iranians will hand us our asses.

[Telly Savalas]

4. Perhaps the complacency comes from the fact that we keep getting told

that an attack on Iran is imminent. It's been going on for two or three years.

A marginally newsworthy event happens with regards to Iran. Then some so-called expert then claims that an attack will happen by such-and-such date. That date passes with no attack, and a few weeks later the cycle repeats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. OK I can see that, to an extent.

The boy who cried wolf syndrome. But it would be foolish to forget that at the end of that fable, the wolf did in fact attack. The non marginally newsworthy event that shifted the liklyhood of an attack on Iran somewhat away from imminent was the November election, when Democrats regained control of Congress. That threw the Bush Administration back on it's heels and off stride. Had we fallen short in November I think the odds of an attack on Iran would have gone up dramatically.

But we are far from out of the woods on this one, and even if the odds now swung against it 5 to one, the reprecussions of that one in five chance actually happening are far too horrendous to be complacent over. Remember,the neocons waited patiently for a decade for a chance to take down Iraq, for a pretense that would justify it to enough of the American public to get away with it. They are doing the same now with Iran, constantly waving fear of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the public's eyes, and test driving various anti-Iran arguments that all lead to the same place: Iran's leaders can't be talked to or trusted, so they must be controlled by force.

If the right pretense doesn't present itself soon enough to whip up a fever against Iran, their motivation to simply fabricate one will increase as Bush's time in office winds down. This story published in the Jerusalem Post serves as an illustration of that dynamic:


Israel is carefully watching the world's reaction to Iran's continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel "may have to go it alone," The Jerusalem Post has learned.

One senior source said on Tuesday that Iran "flipped the world the bird" by not responding positively to the Western incentive plan to stop uranium enrichment. He expressed frustration that the Russians and Chinese were already saying that Iran's offer of a "new formula" and willingness to enter "serious negotiations" was an opening to keep on talking.

"The Iranians know the world will do nothing," he said. "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."

He said there was a need to understand that "when push comes to shove," Israel would have to be prepared to "slow down" the Iranian nuclear threat by itself.

Having said this, he did not rule out the possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months before President George W. Bush leaves the international stage. The US presidential elections, which Bush cannot contest because of term limits, are in November 2008.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525933028&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Check out the Graphic facsimile of the 2003 Iranian document

It's at the bottom of the page opened when you click on the mideast web link.