RSS
Using PayPal
America's Botched 2003 Iran Diplomacy: No Talks with Evil People in the "Axis"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Mar 30 2006, 8:24AM
What follows is an email sent to me by former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.
Col. Wilkerson has given me permission to share publicly:
In fact, in a speech I gave on Iran recently, I stated bluntly that we needed to open a strategic dialogue, we needed to send high-level representation to that dialogue, and only if and when that completely failed should we even be considering "other options".I also outlined for my audience all the times -- some when we had maximum leverage -- that we refused such dialogue over the past four years. The default decision by the cabal -- after it had flummoxed the statutory process -- was achieved: no talks with evil people, particularly those occupying prominent positions in "the axis".
From the time of Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and many, many years before -- it was clear that Iran's behavior was high on the roster of key U.S. national security priorities. We knew that Iran was a big nation, a key player in the Middle East, a financier of terrorist activity beyond its borders, and aspired to regional and international greatness, and that many factions inside Iran yearned for normalization of relations with America. It is a nation full of dramatic contradictions -- but it s a nation that needs to be dealt with, not ignored.
Ignoring Iran's self-initiated diplomatic effort in 2003 is exactly what President Bush, under the influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney, did.
Here is a segment from a fascinating article by Gareth Porter that reflects some of Wilkerson's insights as well as important commentary from Brookings Scholar and former NSC Senior Director for Middle East Affairs Flynt Leverett:
Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney."The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS).
The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address US concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.
Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism".
In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the US to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order.
Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini.
Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.
Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W Bush."
In corners of the Pentagon, CIA, State Department and National Security Agency -- as well as in the Office of the President and Vice President, employees of our government -- supported by taxpayers -- are considering bombing and other hard shock scenarios to preempt Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The truth is that we should always have back up plans, hard and soft scenarios, diplomacy backed by resolve. . .all of that.
But it's a real travesty when diplomacy is never really attempted -- and when the force that Cheney's wing of the foreign policy establishment wants applied actually wrecks American objectives, undermines our goals and interests, and frequently gives the thugs that we are trying to confront the legitimacy they need to grow stronger.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - America the Pugnacious: Feinstein Provision Raises Hurdle for Foreign Students to Access U.S. Universities» Next Article - Stephen Walt, the "Israel Lobby" paper, and Academic Freedom
Hi Steve,
I think its par for the course. The State Department and diplomacy have generally been ignored by this Administration.
This Administration definitely prefers the military option regardless of the consequences. Bush's blaming of Saddam for post invasion chaos in Iraq illustrates this point. Bush inadvertantly concedes that we knew and ignored the chaos that would follow our invasion and chose war nonetheless.
Here's my analysis.
- Mash
The Bush Administration is operating with virtually NO oversight. If they want to attack Iran, they will do so. Period. We have a true dictatorship now, in every sense of the word. Did you watch the budget hearings? The budget, involving trillions of dollars, was released LATE one evening, debated the following day, and a motion to suspend the hearings long enough so that it could actually be READ was DEFEATED. These bastards are running completely unchecked, and our democracy has been pushed aside. We are now in a state of taxation WITHOUT representation, and it will be a major miracle if our corrupted and broken electoral process is capable of dislodging these fascists. Soon, even insiders such as yourself will recognize the grave danger these people pose, and you will have to choose between continuing to enjoy the tittilation of rubbing elbows with power, or actually working to re-institute the checks and balances that hold such power in rein. You can start by admitting you were wrong about that complicit coward Reid, and by beginning to actually include the REAL ISSUES in your blog, such as the complete FANTASY we were fed about 9/11, and the INDISPUTABLE AND PROVABLE fact that two presidential elections were won under highly questionable results.
Steve,
Khalilzad had many conversations with Iranian representatives in Geneva and elsewhere on Iraq in 2003, not to mention Afghanistan. He's pretty senior. And also Wilkerson doesn't say that while his option of open ended high level talks was nixed by the elected president (this cabal stuff is quite sickening); so was a robust aid program for Iranian nonviolent opposition, the favored policy by the pentagon civilians.
Eli
Greetings Eli:
Khalilzad is one of the more sane handlers in the administration. I've met him and discussed the differences between state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq and he has intimated that there are many. On Iran, I assume he'd be more in the camp of cutting deals with Iran one way or another -- but as you must know -- that strategy is not supported uniformly in the EOP.
On the cabal stuff, I disagree. You may not like the word or term -- but too many people have confirmed the Cheney-Rumsfeld chokehold on policy to ignore it.
All that aside, are you back? If so, call me. . .
Best,
Steve Clemons
The ego, the arrogance and the incompetence of the cabal (great descriptor!) is breathtaking.
The naivety, the ignorance and laziness of our own citizens who voted for this cabal and the congressmen who support it is equally mind-blowing.
Unless something monumental happens to get rid of this gangrenous group, we're screwed.
My colleague at the Stanley Foundation, Matt Martin, has a recent op-ed which speaks to the issue of Security Council action on Iran:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/OPINION01/601310371/1036
He warns, "If Iran is punished by the U.N. Security Council for activity allowed under international law, the delicate political balance upon which the nonproliferation treaty rests will be put at risk."
What? America has "foreign policy?" Really? But, isn't this post 9/11 new and improved 'preemptive' America? Doesn't America now have a new and improved 'unitary' Executive Branch? Isn't Deadeye Dick Cheney the real power behind the throne? Doesn't John Bolton look absolutely smug when he gloats in public? Oh yes and for Stolen Speech, the Lithium kicked in and I'm feeling much better now.
Steve, I am really scared and fed up with the games our government is playing with the lives of millions of people in at least 3 nations. Afraid because I smell the use of nuclear weapons by the US in the near future. Fed up because of the hypocrisy being practised by people who can influence the events and are not.
Right now, the US is fomenting hatred against Iran because of it hid somethings from the IAEA, which is hypocrisy of the first order. If every government took on the character we're displaying, how would our past behavior compare to the image we want others to believe, that of the trustworthy partner in the development and support of democracies? There should have been no action by the UN security council toward Iran until our meddling in Palestine and Iraq had be reconciled. No democratic government has the right to dictate who shall be nominated to any position in a government, nor can any democracy sabotage the will of the people of any other democracy.
Seeing that we have done these things without punishment, tell me why Iran should not have nuclear weapons to defend itself? Don't spew rhetoric at me, tell me why you would deny those people the right to a strong, nuclear defense against the threat of pre-emptive nuclear destruction? Have Hiroshima and Nagasaki not proven to us what happens to people subjected to nuclear attacks? What gives us the right to threaten that kind of destruction toward ANYBODY that has not attacked us?
As for North Korea, why hasn't anyone addressed the root cause of their fears? This conflict would be over the second we sat down with them to settle the war we are still engaged in with them.
You know, all this mucketymuck about NPT and the nuclear club really needs to be ended. We have become this world's worst enemy, and no nation deserves to be bullyed by the threat of nuclear annihilation. ALL NATIONS NEED NUKES TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST US.
I cannot believe that there is no one who can drill some common sense into these people...
In Republican's world, nothing anyone does counts unless the US makes them do it.
I agree with Pissed Off American and Steve.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, just a careful observer of the past 5 years to understand we have a cabal here, a cabal there, here a cabal, there a cabal.
Is anyone governing for the actual interest of America any more?
All I see is niche marketing by pandering politicans and parties for their own gain,..pander to the Israeli and neo sector, pander to the illegal immmigration sector, pander to the military industrial sector, pander to the multi-nationals and banking and insurance and drug manfacturing sector,pander to the right, pander to the left, pander to religions, pander to every exile who wants us to overthrow their country for them.....pander,pander,pander.
Can we just have a revolution and get our country back please?
PRE-WEEKEND DEVELOPMENT:
***Bush Warned Repeatedly Iraq Intelligence False Before Pre-War State Of Union...
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
Help this crime finally get some traction. Taking this country to war under false pretenses should be deemed unconstitutional and a criminal offense. Bloggers must force this into MSM.
CENSURE - IMPEACH - INDICT!
Even if the stated reasons for invading Iraq were, it's now almost indisputable, total bullshit, one could at least argue that a big win against a prominent US opponent gave a big (albeit temporary) boost US standing in the region. And that standing was never higher than in April-May-June 2003, when the victory was still fresh and the strength and durability of the insurgency were not yet obvious. There was no better time to put pressure on Iran to resolve the issues - nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism - that have been of justified concern to the West for many years. But now it turns out that even when US power and prestige were highest, the Bushies ignored the opportunity, apparently out of boundless hubris.
So not only are they lousy internationalists, which we already knew, it turns out they're lousy imperialists, too. Is there anything these guys can do right?
"Even if the stated reasons for invading Iraq were, it's now almost indisputable, total bullshit, one could at least argue that a big win against a prominent US opponent gave a big (albeit temporary) boost US standing in the region. And that standing was never higher than in April-May-June 2003, when the victory was still fresh and the strength and durability of the insurgency were not yet obvious......."
Posted by BC
Our invasion of Iraq was NEVER popular in the region, except with Israel. At no time did the invasion give "a big (albeit temporary) boost US standing in the region". There was a brief period when 9/11 actually unified world sentiment in support of the USA, but these inept fascist bastards squandered that good will quickly and completely.
First of all, cabal it might be, but secret??
Second, it is time for Colin Powell to come out from behind Wilkerson and lay it on the line. He may owe much to the Bush family, but he owes more to the country. Wilkerson can go on until the cows come home and he will have absolutely no effect 1mm outside of the Beltway.
Third, where were Wilkerson and Powell when all this was happening. They want kudos for doing nothing?
Eli is dead right. Regrets are one thing, leadership when it counts is another. I give Wilkinson and Powell and "F."
Reader Comments (15) - post a comment