"Last night Colin Powell's former right-hand man, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, told BBC Newsnight that Vice President Cheney rejected a conciliatory offer from Iran back in the spring of 2003. Don't forget this isn't the first time the White House has turned down such an offer."
From Yahoo News:
"An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.
The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal."
Read more here:
How would they sell their wars if they negotiated? Can anyone say "War Monger"?
In short, the Iranians would give up their WMD programs, would "issue a statement expressing support for a just and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338; would stop supporting terrorist organizations (Everett names HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad), would commit to an "ongoing human rights dialogue with the United States," and would "commit to working with the United States to ensure the emergence of a stable, unitary, and democratic political order in Iraq."
In exchange, the US would "commit not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic of Iran;" would "commit to ending unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic" and would re-establish diplomatic relations; would "encourage Iran's peaceful technological development and the involvement of U.S. corporations in Iran's economy;" would drop Iran from the list of "state sponsors of terror," and would initiate an "ongoing strategic dialogue" with Iran.
Sounds like a great deal to me, but would the two countries agree to it? Would the hardliners and crazies (Ahmedinejad, Cheney) on each side torpedo it? Would decades of mistrust trump rational self-interest?
By the way, President Ahmadinejad is coming under major pressure from his fellow Iranians, even "hardliners," basically for being nuts:
Just one month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.[...]
While Iran remains publicly defiant, insisting it will move ahead with its nuclear ambitions, it is under increasing strain as political and economic pressures grow. And the message that Iran's most senior officials seem to be sending is that the president, with his harsh approach and caustic comments, is undermining Iran's cause and its standing.
As I've said many times, Ahmadinejad is a menace, not only to the region but also to Iran itself. He needs to be marginalized while we deal with other Iranian power centers. Fortunately, the Iranian Presidency is not very powerful, and more rational actors have their eye on Ahmadinejad.
OK, a big snark.
Actually I agree with Leverett's analysis--appreciate the link.
In particular the security guarantees seem like a no-brainer. Regime change is an extremely costly option, and it provides the Iranians with a solid justification for the continuation of the nuclear program. Remove it, and the position should moderate a bit. Also, the prospect of an arms race in the Middle East is a frightening scenario.
One point of disagreement: I do not believe the negotiation window is closing. In fact I think there is some logic to SecDef Gates's position that the "conditions are not yet ripe".
The recent news about Ahmadinejad suggest to me that the Iranian position is softening. The softening of the position is being driven in part by internal economic issues--and these will not be improving any time soon. To GWB's credit he picked a very capable Secretary of Treasury in Henry Paulson, who has successfully pushed European banks to withhold future investment in Iran (I suspect with his ties to China, Paulson could also bring some leverage on this front as well). The withholding of investment is one factor that is driving the economic crisis (this is my understanding at least).
This news too, I see as a potential net negative for Iran . . .
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promised Friday that his opposition alliance would intensify its campaign to bring down the government, pledging to mount an "effective" action in the coming days. In an interview with his group's Al-Manar television, Nasrallah said Hezbollah's consultations with its allies were drawing to a close and they would release a statement shortly that spelled out the steps to be taken.
If Hezbollah does in fact undertake actions against the Lebanese government, I see these actions as potentially having negative consequences for the group--and by association Iran. These are not moves targetting Israel, which would almost certainly be very popular in the region, but moves targetting the Lebanese government. It is my guesstimation that these moves will result in Hezbollah being marginalized inside Lebanon. We'll have to see how this plays out. I could be overly optimistic, but we should find out soon enough.
Right now, Iran has a fairly strong hand, but it is a hand that can be overplayed.
Seriously, these are issues that I'm interested in. I've read widely, and traveled broadly (although my experiences vis a vis the Middle East are entirely second-hand from friends).