These words provide a genuine justification for American military power to cross borders into Iran and/or Syria and attack targets.
Lost in the confusion of arcane statistics, detailed military strategies, mind-numbing internal Iraqi political maneuverings and a sullen, unemotional delivery, President Bush, in his speech this evening, actually found time to let Iran (& Syria) know that he will attack their meddling even if it means crossing borders into their countries to blow things up.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
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
27 - Cyrus the Great
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.
28 - Franco
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.
29 - Bird of Paradise
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.
30 - MCH
"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."
31 - Nancy
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.
32 - cyrus the great
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
33 - cyrus the great
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
34 - cyrus the great
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
35 - Bird of Paradise
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!
36 - cyrus the great
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?
37 - Bird of Paradise
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.
38 - cyrus the great
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?!
39 - Bird of Paradise
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.
40 - Cyrus the Great
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.