Funny, isn't this what I gave you to "chew on" in your other thread?

Interesting choice of words with "justification". We'll see how the Hill feels about it, Hagel's words today alone, along with other GOP stalwarts, should give pause to thoughts of further adventurism.

"time wounds all heels"

BOP, you are one of the most simple-minded 'political writers' on BC.

That's not an insult, I love child-like 'art'.

I'm a big fan of Klee, Chinatsu Ban, some periods of Picasso, Pollack...

and you.

Most Americans heard the hoofbeats of the Four Horses of the Bush Apocalypse, but YOU apparently heard John Wayne riding up to threaten the Islamic World with a nice sock on the jaw.

========

re: the point WHERE BUSH THREATENED WAR with at least TWO OTHER NATIONS:

BoP: "...Few, if any, commentators have noted this telling paragraph that showed up just a little more than half-way through the speech..."

Dude: about 150,000,000 people sat up in their chairs and so, "OH SHIT!!" -- including ALL the commentators on MS_NBC, which is what I happened to be watching.

OTHER MOMENTS THAT STUCK OUT:

+++ Bush saying this war on terror would not see a ceremony aboard a ship like our father/grandfathers saw in WW II... while Shark pictured ChickenHawk Flyboy landing on an aircraft carrier beneath a "MISSION ACCOPMLISHED" sign.

+++ Bush saying if we leave Iraq, it could turn into a haven/training ground for anti-US terrorists.

Shark and a few million other *thinking people : "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That happened in April of 03. Thanks George!"


*sorry to leave you out on this one, BoP.

BoP,

Bush's statement is not news, it is merely the recognition by your brave leader that US or Israeli secret opps have gotten coverage.

I see a renewal of the draft a-comin'... also no news to anybody with half a functioning brain cell.

W's rattling his saber, but where's he gonna get all these troops? He wants 22K+ more in Iraq, Afghanistan is acting out again, he's just started more action in Somalia - and now he wants to bait Iran & Syria into striking so he can go play there too? We don't have that many forces to go around (unless he wants to completely evacuate our bases in, say, S. Korea). Current reserve forces are already serving forcibly extended 3rd & 4th deployments, to the point where morale is so bad they didn't have enough guys at Ft. Benning yesterday willing to cheer the Decider In Chief at every turn, so they had to bus a few in from elsewhere. Some of these guys are already serving in what equates to involuntary indentured open-ended servitude & the families in general are NOT very happy either.

Per the WP this ayem, even a surprising no. of GOP congressmaggots are defecting & refusing to support W's moronic proposals; seems the natives back home, i.e. the constitutents, are really getting restless; after all, they sent their message with the election, and Bush is still ignoring it with might & main.

What he's going to do, of course, as D'Oh pointed out, is try to force an end run around congress refusing to fund his war by getting Iran or some other idiots to bite, giving him an excuse to retaliate; at that point, congress would have no choice but to go along & fund whatever he wants, or be labelled as cowards & appeasers who don't support the troops - the usual Bush/Cheney smear against everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Here's hoping someone in Tehran has enough smarts to be able to restrain the rest of the crew into playing into W's hands, altho if I were in their place, perhaps I would want to engage since anything that could weaken the US and/or Bush would be fine by me. On that score I don't know, as I'm not up to snuff on how well-armed Mahmoud D. is, altho lately he seems to be hinting he's willing to roll into it with anybody who thinks they want a piece of him.

Congress needs to get a spine & a will to resist no matter what names are lobbed at them by Rove/Cheney, to retort that the best support for the troops would be to avoid escalation of engagement & bring them home. As for the Iraqis, as I've said ad nauseam previously, I don't give a rat's ass about them. I don't care if they live under some Saddam wannabe; I don't care if they don't have jobs; I don't care if they don't live in refurbished cities with the finest schools; I don't care if they shoot each other to shreds until every man, woman, & child in the place is dead. I. Don't. Care. And I suspect a helluva lot of other Americans don't either, anymore, if they ever did.

Bush wants to establish jobs banks for Iraqis. What about jobs banks for Americans? Aren't we exotic enough for him? Bush wants to rebuild trashed Iraqi cities. What's wrong with rebuilding New Orleans, or refurbishing Detroit or any other number of crumbling US cities? Bush wants to rebuild & improve the Iraqi infrastructures for power, etc. Apparently it's missed his limited attention span that the US power grid is 45 years too old & failing fast?

If Bush wants to be a saviour to Iraq, then that idiotic, worthless bastard should resign his position, renounce his citizenship, & move to Iraq & run for office there. He sure as hell shouldn't be doing this on MY dime, as MY president. And his excuse that it's better to do it there than here is so lame, I didn't believe it even when I first heard it, let alone these days. His problem is, he thinks we're all as stupid as he is, and for a sizable portion of Americans, he's been right. After all, the half-wits voted him into office. Twice.

He's either a completely assinine, stupid maniac, or he's worse, he's a coldblooded monster of indifference, willing to sacrifice any number of lives for his presidential legacy - in which case he belongs in a court & than hanged just like his buddy, Saddam.

Bop,
It seems that u r very excited about the possibility of a new war. This is nothing new. Just trend in the policy which is now publicized. Anyway, I can promise to you, it is not going to be a cake walk. We don't like the regime, but we will defend our country. We have been watching Iraq, nobody wants to have the same experience. No, sir. Keep your democracy for yourself and eat it. We will change this regime from inside if got the chance. This can not happen when threat of a destructive war is above our head. Diplomacy is the answer to middle east problem. 20k more troops to go to war with Iran. You got kidding me! In one of our recent war games, 700k troops were mobolized in few days all across Iraq border. We have solution for air superiority too. By the way don't forget Korean war, when Russian jet fighters were in sky with N Korean flags. Don't you think Putin is a SOB enough to send hundred of their jets to Iranian air space and let Iran's groung forces sloughter Americans? IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY!

Cyrus, I am not excited about any form of military conflict. I am a Christian with a family heritage (and a personal inclination) towards pacifism. In this, and in all my posts, I am not so much an advocate as I am an observer and a commentator on events.

This post is just that, an observation and a comment on it. Don't read more into it that that.

By the way, Bush does not need to declare war on Iran. Iran already declared war on the United States when it stormed the US Embassy in Tehran 28 years ago and when it provided the funds and training for the blowing up of the US Marine compound in Beiruit several years later.

Iran wants to expand its power and influence in the Middle East. The United States does not want Iran to exapand its power and influence in the Middle East. Iran has shown that it is willing to destabalize sovereign nations and kill American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians in order to further its influence.

The United States can either let Iran have its way (which would be against our national interests), negotiate with Iran (we have tried this repeatedly and have gotten nowhere except to provide entertainment and amusement for Iran's leadership) or attempt to physically contain Iran's expansionism.

It is clear from Iran's posturing (and you have confirmed this repeatedly in your comments) that Iran's response to any American response will be to escalate the violence incrementally, forcing America to be drawn into an ever-increasing cycle of violence or to back down.

It is a savvy and sophisticated strategy of bluff and counter-bluff. With Saddam we called his bluff and he folded. Iran will not fold like Iraq. The myth of Pandora's box comes to mind.

Nobody . . . I mean nobody in their right mind wants to enter an outright war with Iran. But I am convinced that, for better or for worse, we will see the United States confronting Iran far more boldly in Iraq (and possibly in Lebanon) than we have seen in the past. The recent assault on the Iranian "consulate" in Kurdistan seems to be part of this new strategy.

I don't know where it will lead. I'm sure Iran will have a way of responding. The current political and religious leadership in Iran is willing to bear whatever price it takes to achieve its expansionist objectives. They are betting that the United States does not have the will to prevent it from doing so.

Personally, I hope Iran folds up like a card table. But I don't think the United States has the political will to do what is necessary to contain the agression.

By the way, it never crossed my mind that the United States would send ground forces into Iran (except to perhaps blow up an IED factory near the Iraqi border). A symbolic, stratigic air strike could be possible, however. I'm not saying I support this idea or even oppose it.

I'm just making an observation and a comment.

I am, in this case, more interested in reading other people's opinions than in offering my own.

Thats like Syria invading Cuba and telling the US to stay out of the regi0n. Bush is such an ass.

With the perspective of history the president will eventually be seen as protecting America in the best way possible, by attacking extremist looneys where they live instead of on American soil. Sort of like WWII. Attack Pearl Harbor and for the next four years the German and Jap extremists had to run for cover! If you left wing whiners would read history and quit looking for handouts from the rest of us there would be clear understanding of how the world really is. Left wing POOR whiners are poor because they just don't understand about the connection between WORK and MONEY. Hello! Look at that pathetic bunch in New Orleans. They were slackers shooting at rescue choppers. Still a rat hole.

Nancy: Do you not care that you (I.e., your country) will gain no respect or cooperation from anywhere in the world until we work to unravel the mess that we (Your president, in particular) have created?

Bird: Was Iraq not a sovereign country when "Dumbo the President" made the personal decision that we need to invade it? So, please remind me, where did our right to invade Iraq come from????

Thank you. :-)

The US shouldn't mess with those crazy people. They're determined to bring on Armageddon. Let Russia deal with them. Another Stalin will kick their arses to hell.

I say sit back and let them destroy themselves. Like judge Judy says, "Some people are too dumb to live."

The US shouldn't mess with those crazy people. They're determined to bring on Armageddon. Let Russia deal with them. Another Stalin will kick their arses to hell.

I say sit back and let them destroy themselves. Like judge Judy says, "Some people are too dumb to live."

While it may be obvious that BUSHCO. is preparing the world for an inevitable strike on an Iranian or Syrian dirt road transporting bread or medicine, it should be just as obvious with what he left out of his speech.

PAKISTAN.

When is he going to hit the supply-lines there that support, fund and provide haven to the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan?

Doug, Iraq started a war with the west when it invaded Kuwait. An international coalition entered that war, drove Iraq out of Kuwait and defeated Iraq. Rather than continue the fighting until Saddam actually surrendered, the coalition negotiated a cease-fire which said that, if Iraq followed certain restraints on its military, etc., the coalition would end the war, leaving Saddam's government in place.

Saddam agreed to these terms, signed them and then repeatedly violated them, for all legal purposes abrogating the cease-fire.

The coalition, and all members of it, were no longer bound by the cease-fire for many years. Without a cease-fire agreement the war, which was never actually concluded, could be renewed at any time.

By virtue of the cease-fire agreement it signed, Iraq under Saddam remained sovereign ON THE CONDITION that they kept the agreement.

When they violated it they forfeited their right to sovereignty.

While many in the coalition resisted re-entering the war the United States and many others chose to call Saddam's bluff.

Under the terms of the violated cease-fire agreement they had every legal right to re-engage Iraq AS IF THE FIRST GULF WAR HAD NEVER HAD A CEASE-FIRE.

The issue to be debated is not whether Bush acted illegally in invading a sovereign nation (which he did . . . along with permission from the US Congress, by the way) but whether it was a reasonable policy decision at the time based on what was then known and whether the desired outcome could be considered reasonably attainable (albeit risky).

THAT is worth debate. The legality/illegality issue is so far removed from reality that it serves no purpose other than to fuel unconstructive anger and distract from the real issues that confront us.

Pardon me, Bird, but which specific terms of the cease-fire agreement did Iraq violate?

Thanks :-)

Doug, In response to your question I Googled "Iraq ceasefire violations" and came up with the following results. If you really want an answer to your questions you can find plenty of examples in these selections (this is not exhaustive, I spent 15 minutes on this):
Security Council Warns Iraqis to Halt Cease-Fire Violations 1992

Note: In order to "fool" the blogcritics limit on the number or webpage citations in a comment I have intentionally left off one of the three "w"s in each link address [I have restored and correctly formatted the links for you BoP. Comments Editor]

UN Cease-Fire Agreement for the First Gulf War 1990

USIA Statement 1991

The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions involving Iraq since it invaded Kuwait in 1990. These include: (1) Resolution 660, regarding its illegal invasion of Kuwait; (2) Resolution 678, authorizing U.N. member states cooperating with Kuwait "to use all necessary means" to implement resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of and withdrawal of forces from Kuwaiti territory and to "restore international peace and security in the area"; (3) Resolution 686, ordering Iraq to release prisoners of the Gulf War, return Kuwaiti property seized during the war, and pay damages resulting from the war; and (4) Resolution 687, requiring it to "unconditionally accept" the removal, destruction, or rendering harmless of all WMD and ballistic missiles with a range greater that 150 kilometers, allow weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq, and pledge not to seek to develop or acquire such weapons in the future.

Iraq violated each of the above resolutions. It had to be forcibly evicted from Kuwait and continues to defy the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zones. Iraq has not paid reparations for the war, has not returned illegally seized property, and has not freed all prisoners taken during the war. In violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, Iraq routinely interfered with weapons inspectors and barred them entirely in 1998. Intelligence and statements of defectors provide ample evidence that Iraq still possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
September 2002

Talk of the Nation, November 5, 1998 • Iraq halts all United Nations weapons inspections until the U.N. Security Council reviews international sanctions against them. Military force could be used if Iraq continues to defy the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. From NPR's Talk of the Nation

Here's an interesting chronological history of events... regarding our topic you can begin reading with 1991 ff

Here's the UN view of compliance in a resolution passed in 2002

BoP,
You wrote:
"negotiate with Iran (we have tried this repeatedly and have gotten nowhere except to provide entertainment and amusement for Iran's leadership)"

Can you remind me when was that?

Bop,
U wrote:
"when it provided the funds and training for the blowing up of the US Marine compound in Beiruit several years later."

Where is your prove for that?

BoP,
Y wrote:
"Iran already declared war on the United States when it stormed the US Embassy in Tehran 28 years ago"

But, all of them were returned back in one piece and now multi-millioner thanks to money they got from Iran. On the other hand, Iranian passenger plane was shot down over Persian gulf with 290 passengers for no reason. All dead.

BoP,
U wrote:
"It is clear from Iran's posturing (and you have confirmed this repeatedly in your comments) that Iran's response to any American response will be to escalate the violence incrementally, forcing America to be drawn into an ever-increasing cycle of violence or to back down"

You misunderstand. I mean, Iran will not role over and die. But, will fight back. It is going to be pretty bloody. There is no need for another war. Diplomacy and negotiation is the answer.

Cyrus, you say the hostages were returned...Yes, but after 444 days, described by one of them at 95% bordom and 5% sheer hell. They all believed that they might be killed . . . up until the day they were released.

According to AP in a 2006 article, "The 52 hostages or their families have sought compensation from frozen Iranian assets through the courts, where their options are exhausted, and through Congress. Legislation is pending, but it has not moved past committee."

According to Wikipedia, "In 2000, the hostages and their families tried to sue Iran, unsuccessfully, under the Antiterrorism Act. They originally won the case when Iran failed to provide defense, but the U.S. State Department tried to put an end to the suit, fearing that it would make international relations difficult. As a result, a federal judge ruled that nothing could be done to repay the damages the hostages faced because of the agreement the U.S. made when the hostages were freed."

Terms of the agreement for their release included the US unfreezing $8 billion of Iranian money. None of this ever enriched those who had been taken hostage.

The Embassy, owned by and sovereign territory of the United States, remains in the hands of the Iranian government. Wikipedia has a lovely photo of the defaced Great Seal of the United States imbedded in the embassy wall as it looks today.

Cyrus, the United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980. Iran has done nothing since to mend that relationship by addressing or reassessing the reasons that precipitated that break.

The US, through intermediaries and State Department liasons, has "unofficial" diplomatic contact with Iran via Switzerland. These folks were called to Iran just today to explain the US attack on the Iranian "consulate" in Kurdistan yesterday.

Unofficial diplomatic communication takes place every day between Iran and the United States. More formally, the United States has worked with a consortium of countries both within and without the United Nations to confront Iran with its violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We all know how well that has been received by Iran.

Cyrus, Again from Wikipedia, "In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[7] Among the intelligence information initially uncovered by Thomas Fortune Fay, an attorney for the families of the victims, was a National Security Agency (NSA) intercept of a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran to Hojjat ol-eslam Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus. As it was paraphrased by presiding U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, "The message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal, and to instruct him ... 'to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines.'"[3]

I have a personal friend who was held hostage in the Bekaa Valley for over a year during that same period. There is no doubt that those who held him operated out of Syria with links to Iran.

After all, the release of these hostages were negotiated by President Reagan's administration but cutting a deal with . . . Iran! ("Arms for Hostages").

Hzbollah had not yet been formally organized at that time but the seeds of its creation had already been planted and were well-rooted at that time.

So, tell me BoP, which of these "resolutions" did Iraq agree to? Please do be specific, okay?

The point in your original post that I took issue with was that Iraq has/had violated terms of cease-fire that they agreed to. Let's stick to the issue you raised, rather than wandering tangentially, okay? :-)

Doug, Iraq signed the United Nations Cease-Fire Agreement. Later, because of multiple and defiant violations of the agreement and of unacceptable human rights violations within Iraq (attacks on civilian Kurds and Shi'ites) other restrictions, such as no-fly zones, were imposed.

Keep up the good work, BoP. Don't let the terrorist sympathizers get you down.

Item for discussion - there was never a war with Iraq. It's just part of a war with Iran which has been going on for 30 years.

Dave

BoP,
u wrote:
"Cyrus, the United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980. Iran has done nothing since to mend that relationship by addressing or reassessing the reasons that precipitated that break."
Around June, 2003. Iran via Switzerland embassy send an official letter for US government. In the letter, it was mentioned that Iran will fully recognize Israel, stop supporting Palestinian and other extremist group, support middle east peace process and help in peace and stability in Iraq. In return, Iran wanted security gaurantee, return of $12 billion (not 8) freezed assets with interest, and hand over of MKO terrorists who have been under control of US since defeat of Saddam. This request was even not answered by US government.
Above has been confirmed by international 3rd parties. As you see, there are things that you don't know or don't want to know. Your other arguments also can be debated easily. But, it is over. War soon will be started. Not you and not me will be the winner. Big corporations will gain from it. I tried to inform you that we are not obligated to solve problems through war. But, seems you have a set mind. You will soon see that Iran's capabilities are not bluff. I'll pray for peace.

27 -- Cyrus the Great

"United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980."

"June, 2003. Iran via Switzerland embassy send an official letter for US government."

OK, you make a point and for the sake of discussion/debate I will not dispute your claim and assume that you are 100% correct about the letter..

This leaves me with the following questions.

If formal diplomatic relations broke off in 1980, and then 23 years pass before Iran sends a letter (indirectly) via another county 3 months after the US had invaded and topple Saddam, don't you think the letter could be looked at by the United States as..

1.) An insult due to indirect correspondence thus less sincere in the eyes of U.S. Officials?

2.) The letter appearing more as a threat or ultmadum then cooperation.

Now I have not read the letter, I am only going on what you said it said. If your interpretation is fairly accurate, it means that my questions above could have been the way the US took its meaning or intention.

The interpretation of foreign text (correspondence) is always subject to misunderstanding. Every culture has is own way of communicating that differs from another and here in lays danger.

From what I have seen, read, and studied on Iran, the current president is not showing a single thing "through is actions" that resembles anything that the letter clamed. As a wise man once said, action speak louder then words.

If the letter was sincere, then why has not the president of Iran shown any of these intentions through is actions. That and that alone would have convinced that US that Iran was in fact sincere. If the 12 billion had not been return yet, it would have been on the table for release had Iran shown an honest attempt at displaying what was addressed in the letter.

Help me understand, and tell me more of what you know.

Cyrus, What is wrong with you! NOT ONCE in any post or comment have I advocated war with Iran. I have written of my appreciation for the Persian people and the historic greatness of the nation and culture of Iran. I have advocated increased sanctions and, while I have discussed the possibility of strategic attacks within Iran I have never advocated them.

You cite an 2003 letter from Iran as evidence of their good will but you cannot cite any source that can back up your claim. Until you do I will consider your "letter" to be worthy of a red dot on Snopes.

On my part, however, I can direct you to a personal letter sent from Iran President Ahmadinajad to President Bush informing him (in the form of friendly advice) that he can either convert to Shia Islam or burn in hell along with the rest of the United States.

"Don't let the terrorist sympathizers get you down."
- Dave Nalle

Nalle, until you back up your phoney written bravado with action, you might also be construed as a "terrorist sympathizer."

Don't play that crap Rovian game of labelling those who aren't warhawks & don't support those neonazis, Bush/Cheney, as 'terrorist sympathizers'. It's old & it's been exposed. Those of us who have seen the wannabe Emperor/Decider has no clothes & speak out about it are the ones with courage & patriotism enough not to allow the US & our troops to be thrown away by the arrogant idiocy & ego of a moral monster in the white house.

BoP, Read this:

Summary of letter purportedly sent by Iran to the US government in the spring of 2003

Iranian aims: (The US accepts a dialogue "in mutual respect" and agrees that Iran puts the following aims on the agenda)
Halt in US hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the US: (interference in internal or external relations, "axis of evil", terrorism list.)
Abolishment of all sanctions: commercial sanctions, frozen assets, judgments(FSIA), impediments in international trade and financial institutions
Iraq: democratic and fully representative government in Iraq, support of Iranian claims for Iraqi reparations, respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbal.
Full access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology
Recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity.
Terrorism: pursuit of anti-Iranian terrorists, above all MKO and support for repatriation of their members in Iraq, decisive action against anti Iranian terrorists, above all MKO and affiliated organizations in the US

US aims: (Iran accepts a dialogue "in mutual respect" and agrees that the US puts the following aims on the agenda)

WMD: full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD, full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)
Terrorism: decisive action against any terrorists (above all Al Qaida) on Iranian territory, full cooperation and exchange of all relevant information.
Iraq: coordination of Iranian influence for activity supporting political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government.
Middle East:
1) stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad etc.) from Iranian territory, pressure on these organizations to stop violent action against civilians within borders of 1967.
2) action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon
3) acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration (Saudi initiative, two-states-approach)

Steps:


I. Communication of mutual agreement on the following procedure
II. Mutual simultaneous statements "We have always been ready for direct and authoritative talks with the US/with Iran in good faith and with the aim of discussing - in mutual respect - our common interests and our mutual concerns based on merits and objective realities, but we have always made it clear that, such talks can only be held, if genuine progress for a solution of our own concerns can be achieved."
III. A first direct meeting on the appropriate level (for instance in Paris) will be held with the previously agreed aims

a. of a decision on the first mutual steps

Iraq: establishment of a common group, active Iranian support for Iraq stabilization, US-commitment to actively support Iranian reparation claims within the discussions on Iraq foreign debts.

Terorrism: US-commitment to disarm and remove MKO from Iraq and take action in accordance with SCR1373 against its leadership, Iranian commitment for enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran, agreement on cooperation and information exchange

Iranian general statement "to support a peaceful solution in the Middle East involving the parties concerned"

US general statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'"

US-acceptance to halt its impediments against Iran in international financial and trade institutions

b. of the establishment of the parallel working groups on disarmament, regional security and economic cooperation. Their aim is an agreement on three parallel road maps, for the discussions of these working groups, each side accepts that the other side's aims (see above) are put on the agenda:

1) Disarmament: road map, which combines the mutual aims of, on the one side, full transparency by international commitments and guarantees to abstain from WMD with, on the other side, full access to western technology (in the three areas),

2) Terrorism and regional security: road map for above mentioned aims on the Middle east and terrorism

3) Economic cooperation: road map for the abolishment of the sanctions, rescinding of judgments, and un-freezing of assets



c. of agreement on a time-table for implementation

d. and of a public statement after this first meeting on the achieved agreements

mideastweb.org

The existence of such a letter was also claimed by Flynt Leverett in a New York Times article of January 24, 2006. He wrote:

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

source - brookings.edu

According to a Newsday story of February 19, 2006 the letter was initiated by Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran. It is not clear that Kharazi had the blessing of the Iranian government. It is assumed that the document reflect Iranian reaction to the US invasion of Iraq, which was then in the first flushes of success

Cyrus, Thank you for the references to the letter. That is why I hang around and dialogue with people . . . because I learn things I did not know before. I do not have a "set mind" as you put it a few comments ago. My mind is closed enough so that my opinions don't fall out of it onto the floor, but it is open enough to allow some fresh air to clear out the dust and cobwebs once in a while!

Franco,
I think #32 answer your concerns. First, Iran tried dircect contact via its representative(s) in New York at UN. Switzerland embassy had to be used in addition. Because,two countries has not have formal relation. This should not be considered as an insult. Second, as you see in the letter, there is no language of threat.

I agree with you, actions speak louder that word. But, consider this: when the letter was sent, Iranian president was Khatami which is 180 degree different from current president (Ahmadinejad). Khatami belongs to reformist movement.
Iran's positive actions included:
1. Full cooporation with invasion of Afghanestan. Northern alliance were supported, trained and equipped by Iran. They faught for years against Taliban before Americans come. They could not survive without Iran's support and got approval of Iran for working with Americans.
2. Iran assured Americans which will do rescue operation for any shut down American pilots during the war.
3. Iran opened its air space in a predetermined corridor for use by US air force.
4. After defeat of Iraq, Iran ask for full cooperation of Shei majority.

Having no positive feedback from west toward Khatami's regime help Ahmadinejad to win the next presidential election.

Now, I have a question for you and BoP. If Iran is helping the insurgency in Iraq, why we don't see advanced weapons in their hand. Like at least what Hezbollah has?

Factory produced directional IEDs that are able to pierce the armor of an M1 tank.

As for large rockets that require large launchers as are needed to fire rockets from Lebanon deep into Israel, they would be difficult to sneak into Iraq, difficult to hide, difficult to use, more or less useless for any purpose strategic or otherwise and, most important, more difficult for Iran to deny knowing how they got there.

Like you have said, Iran is smart. I have not disagreed with that.

BoP,
1. You did not mention your idea about the letter.
2. Iran is mass producing shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (Misagh 1 and 2). Also, guided anti-tank missiles (Toophan and .....). They are not much bigger than RPG-7. Iran has been accused anyway, what is the point of hiding it?
3. Why US is closing eyes to flow of fundementals sunnis and their supply of money and weapons passing from Saudi and Jordanian borders to Iraq everyday?!

Cyrus, I don't have an opinion on the letter from Iran to the United States. For all I know there have been 3 or 4 or 5 different letters saying various things over the past years. Perhaps things are as you say and the United States lost a chance to develop a relationship with Iran than would have sustained the so-called "moderates" hold on power.

The letter said nothing about the nuclear weapons program so that, in itself, might have been a diplomatic non-starter for the administration at that time. On the face of it the letter seems to have deserved a more substantive response.

Then again, the letter might well have generated some level of conversation between the countries that either did not pan out or may, in fact, be still underway "behind the scenes."

I suppose some sort of pact could be worked out . . . such as the United States signing a mutual non-agression treaty with Iran in return for Iran recognizing the existance of Israel as a legitimate nation and ally of the United States, etc. But I doubt that the US government has enough faith in the stability or stated intentions of the current regime to take such an approach very seriously.

Sorry. I am glad to know of the existance of the letter, however. It is one more piece in the very complex puzzle.

Oh, and by the way. The United States is blamed for everything else in the world these days, I suppose they might as well be blamed for being responsible for the current elected leaders in Iran, too.

ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggested that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ultimately would not thwart its ambitions.

"What we know is that Iran has the knowledge, but you cannot bomb knowledge," he said.