Cross posted at My Left Wing, Daily Kos and Patriot Daily
Bush has repeatedly stated that he prefers a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the current confrontation with Iran over whether its nuclear program is for energy or weapons. However, Bush has rejected a comprehensive peace offer by Iran in 2003, terminated bilateral talks with Iran on Iraq that were initiated by the US, rejected bilateral talks on the Iranian nuclear program and belittled the Iranian President’s recent letter. Simultaneously with these rejections of diplomatic resolutions, Bush is increasing his confrontational stance with Iran by proceeding with a long-desired baby star war initiatives in Europe, defensive measures in the Middle East and regime change initiatives inside Iran.
Bush Rejected Comprehensive Iranian Peace Offer In 2003.
This month Secretary of State Rice rejected the idea of providing security guarantees to Iran that the US would not attack or undermine the Iranian government in exchange for Iran ending its nuclear program. Rice found it strange to even discuss the issue of security guarantees because “Iran threatens Israel, promotes terrorism in the Middle East and stirs up violence in southern Iraq to the detriment of U.S. forces.” In short, Rice stated that “Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table.”
However, 3 years ago, Iran reportedly submitted a comprehensive peace offer to the US that provided concessions on the salient issues of Israeli security, terrorism sponsorship and its nuclear program. In 2003, Iran offered the following in a document that was provided to the Inter Press Service:
(1) Peace with Israel;
(2) Cessation of “material assistance to Palestinian armed groups” and agreement to pressure the groups to stop terrorist attacks within Israel’s 1967 borders, and
(3) Acceptance of “tighter controls” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for “full access to peaceful nuclear technology.” Iran also agreed to cooperate with IAEA protocols, which “would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.”
In return, Iran wanted the US to end its hostility against Iran, recognize Iran as a legitimate Middle Eastern power, recognize Iran’s legitimate “security interests in the region with according defense capacity,” and terminate sanctions.
Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer.
Today, the Bush administration is making the case for war or military action against Iran because it is a “troublemaker” for advocating the destruction of Israel, sponsoring terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet, Bush refused to even respond to an Iranian peace offer that included concessions on all of these stated concerns and seemed to present a viable starting point for negotiations. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Bush may have rejected the offer because an actual negotiated peace settlement would eliminate his grounds for taking military action or imposing sanctions on Iran to achieve some unstated ultimate goal, such as regime change.
Bush Nixes Bilateral Talks With Iran About Iraq.
In March 2006, the US invited Iran to direct talks on the situation inside Iraq. Senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Rice, had previously stated that US-Iranian talks on Iraq would commence after Baghdad established its new government. On May 24th, the White House nixed these previously authorized direct talks between Iran and the US ambassador in Baghdad.
If Iran is truly interfering in Iraq and arming the insurgency resulting in US soldiers being killed or wounded, as claimed by the Bush administration, why cancel bilateral talks limited to addressing issues related to Iraq? The answer may be concern that bilateral talks on Iraq may have expanded into bilateral talks on the nuclear issue, an outcome that Western diplomats were hopeful would occur once negotiations were underway.
Bush Rejects Iranian President’s Letter, Which US Intelligence Concluded Was Significant Overture By Iran.
The Iranian President sent President Bush a May 8th letter, which US intelligence analysts assessed as a “major overture.” American experts on Iran concluded that the “contents of the letter” were “less significant than its return address” because no Iranian president has even attempted direct contact with a US president since the two countries ended diplomatic relations in 1979 over the Iranian student militants who held Americans hostage.
Bush administration officials dismissed the letter and Press Secretary Snow indicated that there would be no official response because “Iran, in responding to pressure, is trying to change the subject and we won’t let them change the subject.” If Bush is pursuing diplomacy, then the “subject” that Snow references is the negotiations of some type between the two countries. Even ignoring all the other instances where Iran has sought direct discussions with the US, a historic letter of significance from one president to another is clearly an outreach of diplomacy that Bush is now rejecting.
The Bush Administration Imposes Impossible Precondition To Iran’s Requests For Bilateral Talks On The Nuclear Issue.
In recent weeks, Iran has been requesting direct talks with the Bush administration on the nuclear issue, which is supported by the UN and other countries, such as Germany. Press Secretary Snow stated that the “precondition for bilateral talks would be that Iran cease enriching uranium and did `nothing to build up its capacity to make nuclear weapons.'” The problem is how does Iran prove a double negative that it is no longer enriching uranium and no longer working on its capacity to build nuclear weapons. This is the problem Iraq faced, but the US did not permit UN weapons inspectors to complete their mission of determining whether Iraq was truthful when it stated that it did not have WMDs. This was the standard that Bush used to proceed to war against Iraq, and now Bush is using this high standard to bar negotiations.
Bush Ratchets Up Confrontational Stance With Baby Star Wars Initiative In Europe.
Meanwhile, Bush is preparing to protect the world from Iran with defensive military measures reminiscent of President Reagan’s proposed star war initiative to fight the other super-power at the time, the Soviet Union. The Bush administration is “moving to establish a new antimissile site in Europe that would be designed to stop attacks by Iran against the United States and its European allies.” In fact, this proposed antimissile site is the most recent progeny of Reagan’s space-based antimissile shield. It is interesting that this proposal is a “long-envisioned antimissile site” at an estimated cost of $1.6 billion and that the proposal “has run into some opposition in Congress.” Perhaps this very weak Congress will drop its opposition to this “long-envisioned” baby star wars once Bush more directly connects it to US security against axis-of-evil member Iran.
In addition to an antimissile site in Europe, the “Bush administration is developing a containment strategy with the Islamic state’s Persian Gulf neighbors that would spread sophisticated missile-defense systems across the region and try to interdict more ships carrying nuclear technology to the country.”
Rather than pursue bilateral talks, the Bush administration is also increasing its confrontational stance with Iran with a “campaign to promote democracy and fund dissidents” which “prompts speculation that the administration’s goal is to change the regime” rather than end an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Yet, Bush continues to proclaim that he prefers a diplomatic resolution but will seek UN action to penalize Iran for “refusing to negotiate in good faith”:
“`Obviously we’d like to solve this issue peacefully and diplomatically, and the more the Iranians refuse to negotiate in good faith the more countries are beginning to realize that we must continue to work together.’ The United States is poised to seek U.N. Security Council action to heap pressure on Iran for refusing to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear ambitions, President George W. Bush said on Tuesday.”
So, what is the penalty for refusing to negotiate at all?
Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!
