|
|
|
Last Updated: Nov 17, 2008 - 8:26:04 AM |
Most of the stories establish their authority by quoting two former
officials of the State Department and the National Security Council,
Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann, and a Swiss "intermediary, "
former Ambassador Tim Guldimann-all forceful advocates of the view that
Iran was ready for a deal.
This narrative, that there was a missed diplomatic opportunity, has
found a receptive audience among many who believe we fought an
unnecessary war with Iraq. It is a pillar of the belief, widespread on
the left, that we are in danger of being lured into an unnecessary
conflict with Iran when we could resolve our differences with the
Islamic Republic if only we would engage with them diplomatically.
But there is a fundamental problem with the prevailing narrative of a
2003 "offer" that is omitted or mentioned dismissively in passing in
most of the iterations that have appeared, and it is this: Leverett
and Mann's own pro-engagement colleagues at the State Department, not
the "Neocons," have denied directly all four of the central elements in
their account. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and
Powell's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, both consistent advocates
of a diplomatic approach to Iran, have each provided on the record
accounts directly contradicting the narrative that Leverett and Mann
have spread to wide audiences. Armitage and Wilkerson say that the
State Department itself doubted that there was in fact an "offer" from
Iran in May 2003. They do not think that the senior Iranian leadership
approved the text, as Leverett and Mann claim. They say directly that
they and colleagues at State, not Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the "Neocons,"
dismissed the text Leverett and Mann cite, even though they would have
been receptive to such an offer if they thought it was genuine. And
they say they rejected it, not because they lacked interest in seeking
a "Grand Bargain" with Iran, but because the text the intermediaries
claimed was Iranian bore little resemblance to the many authoritative
messages the State Department was receiving more directly from Iran
through bilateral and multilateral contacts.
This article will look in detail at how the myth of an "Iranian offer"
was promulgated, and why the authoritative denials have been ignored.
A detailed reconstruction is worthwhile because the Leverett/Mann
narrative has been so influential, and because it plays a central role
in the debate about Iran policy today. It is also worth close
analysis as a case study of how foreign policy myths are created and
made resistant to correction.
Birth of the Myth
Reports asserting that Iran had offered a deal but the Bush
Administration rejected it, began to appear shortly after Flynt
Leverett left government service in May 2003. The first appeared in
the Financial Times on July 15, 2003, under the provocative headline
"US rejects Iran's offer for talks on nuclear programme." The story
said, "Iran has communicated to the US its readiness to open direct
talks about its nuclear programme as a first step towards tackling
other issues, such as terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
but US officials say the Bush administration is keeping the door
closed.[emphasis added]" The Iranian official involved "is thought to
have high-level backing for negotiations that would cut deals on an
issue-by-issue basis, starting with the nuclear crisis." [1] The same
paper followed up with a report on March 16, 2004 under a headline
specifically blaming the Administration' s hardline camp: "Washington
hardliners wary of engaging with Iran." This report called it "Iran's
proposal of a road map leading to the restoration of relations with the
US" and said, "The offer was said to come from a senior Iranian
official designated two years ago by Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader,
to co-ordinate a special committee on US relations.' The Financial
Times claimed that "a US official said the Bush administration did not
question the authenticity of the proposal." But, "Instead of replying
to Tehran, an official said the State Department rebuked the Swiss
foreign ministry for overstepping its diplomatic mandate" by acting as
an intermediary to transmit the proposal. [2]
A few months later, the Washington Post picked up the story. "Swiss
Ambassador Tim Guldimann arrived in Washington carrying a plan he had
discussed with ...Iran's ambassador to France. The agenda laid out the
framework of a ‘grand bargain.' The administration brushed it aside."
Like the Financial Times, the Post implied that the initiative was
rejected by the Administration' s hardline camp, by quoting a prominent
ally of the Pentagon/OVP team, Undersecretary of State John Bolton:
"We're not interested in any grand bargain." [3]
In January 2006, Leverett himself wrote an op-ed piece excoriating the
Administration for missing what he depicted as an offer from Iran. "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.
...Unfortunately, the administration' s response was to complain that
the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington
were out of line." [4] Leverett called the Administration' s rejection
of what he considered an Iranian offer, "the strategic equivalent of
medical malpractice. " [5] He told Newsday "it indicated that Iran
wanted to negotiate a grand political bargain with the United States
that would include everything from Iran's nuclear program to its
support for groups that Washington regards as terrorist." Leverett
told Newsday, "The message had been approved by all the highest levels
of authority" in Iran. At the same time, it was the first report to
indicate that anyone had doubts about whether the message was in fact
an authentic Iranian offer, and it was the first report to indicate
that these doubts existed at the State Department rather than just the
hardline camp. "The State Department disputes that there was ever a
prospect for credible direct negotiations with Iran. ‘The presumption
that the regime in Iran is going to change its stripes is specious,'
said a department spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity. ‘Was
there a credible approach from the Iranian government with an offer
that made any kind of sense? Never at any time." [6]
Ignoring the Counter-evidence
>From the beginning, Leverett and the many journalists picking up his
account omitted a critical detail: Even the Swiss Ambassador most
directly engaged in the "offer", Tim Guldimann, never said that it had
clear authorization. Guldimann admitted, in his May 4, 2003 cover
letter transmitting the supposed Iranian offer to the State Department,
that the Supreme Leader in Iran, Ali Khamenei, had actually objected to
some of the provisions in the proposal Guldimann was transmitting. And
Guldimann acknowledged that he did not know to which provisions
Khamenei had objections. "On May 2...[Iranian Ambassador to France
Sadeq Kharazzi] told me that he had two long discussions with the
Leader on the Roadmap...Kharazzi told me that the Leader uttered some
reservations for some points... the Leader agree[d] with 85-90% of the
paper.'...I tried to obtain from him a precise answer on exactly what
the Leader explicitly has agreed," but Guldimann admits he was not
given an answer. [7]
While Leverett was assuring journalists that he had proof positive that
the proposal was approved by the top level in Iran, even Richard Haass,
his former boss when he was at Policy Planning in the State Department
and an ally in Leverett's camp, admitted that it was difficult to know
whether the proposal was fully supported by the "multiple governments"
that run Iran. [8]
It was not until February 2007-nearly four years after the first leaks
about an "Iranian offer"--that the State Department finally went on the
record to express its skepticism about whether there had in fact been
an authoritative offer from Iran or something else. State Department
spokesman Tom Casey told the Washington Post, "This document did not
come through official channels but rather was a creative exercise on
the part of the Swiss ambassador. The last 30 years are filled with
examples of individuals claiming to represent Iranian views." [9]
Weeks later, then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told
Newsweek that, in his opinion, the letter represented creative
diplomacy by the Swiss ambassador, Tim Guldimann, who was serving as a
go-between. "We couldn't determine what [in the proposal] was the
Iranians' and what was the Swiss ambassador's. " [10] Larry Wilkerson,
chief of staff to Colin Powell and no hawk on Iran, admitted that the
Swiss proposal had been reviewed and rejected by the State Department's
own top Iran experts, who had seen dozens of such proposals in the
past. "In other words, the State Department professionals who knew Iran
best were not happy with it?" Patrick Clawson [asked]. "Yes,"
Wilkerson acknowledged. [11]
These doubts in the minds of State Department professionals may have
been the end of the matter. Both Condoleezza Rice (then National
Security Adviser) and Elliot Abrams, who headed Mideast affairs the
NSC, denied that they received or acted upon the Guldimann proposal at
all, [12] contradicting one of the themes in the Leverett/Mann
narrative. Rice said, ""I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking
about." Leverett responded, "Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and
the American public." [13]
Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State who had been Leverett's boss
and patron, provided the most detailed authoritative rebuttal to the
theory of an Iranian offer in July 2007. He told PBS' Frontline a few
months after the Leverett/Rice imbroglio, that he and Powell had been
"very interested" in an opening to Iran, but neither of them thought
that the message they received in May 2003 was a "serious endeavor...I'
ve seen Flynt Leverett...argue that this was a missed opportunity. But
I must say that speaking for me and most of my colleagues at the State
Department, we didn't see it that way, and I don't think many others
did at the time because it didn't fit with some of the other things...
that we'd been hearing from Iran....If there had been a desire on the
Iranian side to seek a better relationship, it would have been an ideal
time...to send that signal, and we got no such signal to my knowledge.
I remember talking with people from our Near East division about a fax
that came in from the Swiss ambassador, and I think our general feeling
was that he had perhaps added a little bit to it because it wasn't in
consonance with the state of our relations... The Swiss ambassador in
Tehran was so intent ... on bettering relations between ...the United
States, and Iran that we came to have some questions about where the
Iranian message ended and the Swiss message may begin...And we had had
some discussions, ...particularly through intelligence channels with
high-ranking Iranian intelligence people, and nothing that we were
seeing in this fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to
face. So we didn't give it much weight." [14]
Armitage's view is significant, because it establishes two things: (1)
The Guldimann initiative was dismissed by officials who did want
engagement with Iran, not by those opposed to it. And (2) the
officials who dismissed the initiative did so because they did not
believe it was actually an Iranian offer, even though they were looking
for a grand bargain with Iran. Armitage's account directly contradicts
Leverett, who told a forum held by the New America Foundation in a
Senate office building [15] that Secretary of State Powell received a
"grand bargain" offer from Iran and was rebuffed by the White
House..."In [Secretary Powell's] words, he ‘couldn't sell it at the
White House.'" [16] Armitage said, "I know that [Powell] didn't think,
as I did, that this was an extraordinarily serious endeavor. That much
I know." [17]
The stories about an Iranian offer transmitted on May 4, 2003, also
fail to take into account what was happening in more direct U.S.-Iran
contacts in the same time frame. Acting U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (and
NSC Senior Director) Zalmay Khalilzad had just met with Deputy Iranian
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (soon to become UN ambassador) in Geneva
on May 3, one day before the Guldimann fax arrived at the State
Department. This was their fourth meeting in as many months. Earlier,
there had also been more than sixteen meetings between Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker, (who was also
serving as the interim envoy to Afghanistan) and senior Iranian Foreign
Ministry officials in Geneva and Paris from November 2001 through
December 2002, at least one every month except January 2002. Special
Afghanistan Envoy James Dobbins had negotiated with Deputy Iranian
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and a senior Iranian General in full
uniform, at three meetings from November 2001 through March 2002.
>From the inception of the Bush Administration in January 2001 up to the
day of the Guldimann fax, there had been at least 24 meetings at which
American officials at the rank of Ambassador or equivalent met directly
with senior Iranian officials for substantive discussions. When Deputy
Secretary of State Armitage said, "Nothing that we were seeing in this
fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to face," he was
drawing upon a considerable body of diplomatic information, not to
mention information acquired by the intelligence community.
The prevailing narrative or the "Iranian offer" also ignores wider
trends in Iranian policy pointing in the opposite direction at the same
time. A year after the horrific al-Qaeda attacks on New York and
Washington, Iran had given refuge to twenty al-Qaeda leaders fleeing
the U.S. bombing in Afghanistan including bin Laden's son Sa'ad bin
Laden, himself an important terror captain. The Washington Post
reported, "The younger bin Laden...is protected by an elite, radical
Iranian security force loyal to the nation's clerics and beyond the
control of the central government, according to U.S. and European
intelligence officials... .Also under the Jerusalem Force's protection
is Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda's chief of military operations; Abdullah
Ahmed Abdullah, the organization' s chief financial officer; and
perhaps two dozen other top al Qaeda leaders, the officials said.
Al-Adel and Abdullah are considered the top operational deputies to
Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri."
On May 3, 2003, just one day before the Guldimann fax arrived,
Khalilzad asked Zarif to have these al-Qaeda figures in Iran
interrogated to get critical information that might help to interdict a
forthcoming attack of which warning had been received. Iran declined
to do so. The al-Qaeda attack occurred in Saudi Arabia nine days
later, killing 35. The Post reported, "European and U.S. intelligence.
..conclude[ d] that the Riyadh attacks were planned in Iran and ordered
[by Sa'ad bin Laden] from there." [18]
Iran was also in the process of accelerating its pursuit of nuclear
weapons. In March 2002, Iran began work to improve the P-2 centrifuge
to enrich uranium more rapidly than the P-1. In August 2002, the
Iranian opposition exposed a secret enrichment plant at Natanz that
Iran had concealed from the IAEA. The IAEA found traces of highly
enriched uranium in February through April, 2003 inspections at Natanz,
just weeks before the Guldimann fax. On February 10, 2003, the head
of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said that Iran had started an
ambitious nuclear energy program and was poised to begin processing
uranium.
As soon as the U.S. began the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Iran's
mortal enemy Saddam Hussein, beginning on March 20, 2003, Iran began
infiltrating agents and weapons into Iraq to take the lives of American
soldiers and support insurgents undermining U.S. efforts at
stabilization. By May 2003, the time of the Guldimann fax, the
aggressive Iranian program was in high gear.
When Guldimann's fax arrived, most of Leverett and Mann's colleagues
were absorbing these and other new causes of distress about Iran.
Mann, just returned to the State Department Policy Planning Council,
was in a minority who were highly impressed by what Guldimann sent.
She wrote a long memorandum, attaching Guldimann's fax, urging Colin
Powell to take it to the White House. Her advice was not taken.
Armitage said the New East Bureau (not many Neocons there!) was less
impressed. Hillary Mann and Flynt Leverett were outliers to the State
Department consensus on Guldimann's fax. They saw much greater
significance than their colleagues found in it.
The Myth Lives On
But these corrections [19] have had little effect on the burgeoning
literature about a supposed Iranian offer that was allegedly rejected
by Bush Administration hard liners. It is by now an urban legend. A
Washington Post headline is typical: "U.S. Spurned Iranian Offer of
Dialogue." [20] The "Neocons Killed Peace" narrative was laid out in
its most ferocious form by columnist Nicholas D. Kristof in the New
York Times in April 2007: "Hard-liners in the Bush administration
killed discussions of a deal...[when] Iran transmitted its "grand
bargain" proposals to the U.S...The Neo-cons killed the incipient peace
process...What the hard-liners killed wasn't just one faxed Iranian
proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that
officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued
peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush
administration officials... A U.S.-Iranian rapprochement could have
saved lives in Iraq, isolated Palestinian terrorists and encouraged
civil society groups in Iran. But instead the U.S. hard-liners chose to
hammer plowshares into swords." [21] Trita Parsi, President of the
National Iranian American Council, completely ignoring evidence to the
contrary, claimed in his book that "The State Department recognized
[that] the offer was authentic, and had the approval of the highest
level of authority in Iran. Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage
favored a positive response...Together with National Security Adviser
Condeleezza Rice, the approached the president about the proposal,
but...Cheney and Rumsfeld quickly put the matter to an end." [22] On
November 7, 2007, Hillary Mann Leverett told a Congressional Committee
that, "Secretary Rice and former administration officials have
acknowledged [that] Teheran sent this offer in early May 2003 through
Switzerland. ..but the Bush administration rejected this proposal."
[23] All of these statements are contradicted by the Armitage and
Wilkerson accounts.
It would have been more accurate to admit that the provenance of the
"Roadmap" faxed by Guldimann and the motives of the Iranian authorities
toward it were difficult to ascertain. Had they taken this more
guarded and credible approach, the advocates of the initiative would
still be able to argue that the best response on our side is to test
the Iranians' intentions rather than ignore the possibility that the
initiative is real. But this more guarded and objective approach would
not earn dramatic headlines with the gripping message, "Iran offers
peace, Neocons say ‘No!'"
The approach they did take, while less accurate, got more attention, in
spite of the many authoritative corrections and rebuttals. It was a
particular success for two former officials, Flynt and Hillary Mann
Leverett, whose narrative continues to influence many in the policy
community, even if it is wrong. Their account correlated with a prior
belief in the minds of many of the journalists to whom they gave
it-that the Bush Administration missed diplomatic opportunities. It
was therefore taken, not as a minority opinion from two former
officials whose advice had been rejected by their colleagues and
superiors, but as an objective account of a proven reality. It was an
example of the theory of cognitive dissonance: when an incoming
message correlates with prior values and beliefs, the message is
retained; when a new message contradicts deeply held values and
beliefs, the message is rejected and the values and beliefs are
retained. Unfounded confidence that Iran was ready for a deal became
part of the remembered past. Much more powerful evidence that Iran was
going in the opposite direction-toward confrontation and away from
compromise-is expelled from the mind.
Steven Rosen was the Director of Foreign Policy Issues for the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) from 1982-2005. Previously, he
served as Deputy Director of the National Securities Strategies Program
at the RAND Corporation, and on the faculties of Brandeis University,
the Australian National University, and the University of Pittsburgh.
Appendix
Direct and Indirect Bush Administration Contacts with Iran, including
more than 28 Separate Meetings with American officials of Ambassadorial
Rank
(Direct U.S.-Iran meetings shown in bold below)
November 2001 through December 2002, more than sixteen meetings were
held in Geneva and Paris (at least one every month except January 2002)
between Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Ryan Crocker, (who was also serving as the interim envoy to
Afghanistan) and senior Iranian Foreign Ministry officials.
November-December 2001, Special Afghanistan Envoy James Dobbins
negotiated with Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Bonn,
leading to the Bonn Agreement on Afghanistan.
January 21-22, 2002, Special Afghanistan Envoy James Dobbins discussed
the Karina-A incident with a senior Iranian diplomat at the Tokyo
donors conference for Afghanistan.
March 30 2002, Special Afghanistan Envoy James Dobbins discussed the
future of the Afghan National Army with an Iranian general, in full
uniform, who had been the commander of their security assistance
efforts for the Northern Alliance throughout the war.
January 2003, acting U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (and NSC Senior Director)
Zalmay Khalilzad and Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (soon
to become UN ambassador) assume control over the negotiations; they
meet in Paris.
March 16, 2003, Khalilzad and Crocker hold second meeting with Zarif
in Geneva
March 21, 2003 Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi
denied that Zarif and Khalilzad met
April 2003, Khalilzad and Crocker hold third meeting with Zarif in
Geneva
May 3, 2003, Khalilzad and Crocker hold fourth meeting with Zarif in
Geneva
May 4, 2003 Tim Guldimann, the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, faxes to the
State Department what he depicts as an Iranian "Roadmap" for a
comprehensive settlement of issues with the U.S. (called by some a
"Grand Bargain")
October 21, 2003: Acting on the basis of an understanding with the
United States, German Foreign Joschka Fischer, British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin
met with top Iranian officials in Teheran.
November 17, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "I think that
my three colleagues, the EU Three, played a very, very helpful role in
going to Tehran...and coming back with a very, very positive and
productive result."
December 2003: Further talks between Iran and the European Union.
November 15, 2004 agreement signed by the Governments of France,
Germany, the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in Paris.
November 24, 2004: Secretary of State Colin Powell said "The United
States has been supportive of the Europeans' efforts."
December 13, 2004 - Expanded talks between Iran and EU begin, with
American support.
January 7, 2005 Talks between Russia and Iran on the Moscow proposal
end without a result with the parties promising to resume talks in
February
January 2005 Europe and Iran begin trade talks.
March 11, 2005: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says that the
United States will "make an effort to actively support the EU-3's
negotiations with the Iranians" and lift a decade-long block on Iran's
membership of the World Trade Organization, and end objections to
Tehran obtaining parts for commercial planes.
January 12, 2006 EU3 call off nuclear talks with Iran and say Tehran
should be referred to UN Security Council.
May 31, 2006 In a major policy shift, Secretary Rice says the U.S. is
willing to join the multilateral talks with Iran if Tehran verifiably
suspends its nuclear enrichment program. The U.S. also gives assent to
a package of carrots and sticks Solana will describe to the Iranians.
May 31, 2006 U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton was instructed to
deliver a message to Iranian UN ambassador that Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was willing to meet with Iranian officials if the
government suspended uranium enrichment. Bolton said he called Iran's
ambassador, Javad Zarif to set up a meeting, but Zarif told him he was
instructed by Iran not to meet. Bolton's chief of staff donned
sunglasses and a trench coat and dropped off a letter at the mission so
each side could say they fulfilled their duties. attempted to deliver a
letter
June 5-6, 2006 On behalf of the five permanent members of the Security
Council, Javier Solana flew to Tehran to convey to Iran a package of
incentives if Iran suspends its uranium enrichment, and specific
actions that might be taken if Iran does not accept the package.
July 11, 2006 A meeting between Ali Larijani, Javier Solana and the
foreign ministers of the P5 plus Germany in Brussels ended with no
result.
September 9, 2006 Contacts between Javier Solana and Ali Larijani
resumed.
October 4, 2006: EU foreign policy chief Solana says four months of
intensive talks have brought no agreement on suspension of Iran's
sensitive nuclear activities, and he adds that the dialogue cannot
continue indefinitely.
February 9, 2007 Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani meets
with IAEA Chief Mohammad El Baradei
March 8, 2007 Rice's Senior Adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield,
affirms U.S. interest in discussions with Iran about the situation in
Iraq
March 10, 2007 - The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, holds a
meeting with an Iranian team at a conference of Iraq's neighbors in
Baghdad.
April 25, 2007 EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and
Security Policy Javier Solana and Iran's top negotiator Ali Larijani
held talks in Ankara.
May 28, 2007 - The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and Iranian
Ambassdor to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi meet in Baghdad
May 31, 2007 The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana met Iranian
negotiator Ali Larijani in Spain.
June 22, 2007 Ali Larjani and Javier Solana met again in Geneva
July 24, 2007 The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and his
Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi, held a second round of talks in
Baghdad
August 6, 2007 The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and his Iranian
counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi held a third round of talks in Baghdad
August 20-21, 2007 extensive talks in Tehran between Iran and the UN's
nuclear agency,
October 7, 2007. The top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David
Petraeus, accused Iran's ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qomi of belonging to
the Quds force, which he accused of "lethal involvement and activities"
in Iraq, "providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some
cases the direction for operations" against U.S. and Iraqi forces.
October 16, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin met Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad at a summit meeting of five Caspian
Sea nations in Iran.
October 23, 2007 Solana and the new Iranian nuclear negotiator met in
Rome
November 20, 2007 The U.S. and Iran agree to fourth round of
Crocker/Qomi talks
November 30, 2007 Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met
with Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, in London
January 11-12, 2008 ElBaradei visited Iran and met Iran's leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
January 27, 2008 U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad attends
multilateral meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
and Mojtaba Samare Hashemi, a top advisor to President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in Davos, Switzerland. State Department says it was
"unauthorized. "
May 7, 2008 Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini
said there was no point in having talks with Washington as long as US
forces continued attacking Shiite militias in Baghdad and therefore a
fourth round of talks between the United States and Iran over the
security situation in Iraq is unlikely to go ahead.
June 14, 2008 Javier Solana, travelled to Iran with representatives
from the E3 (France, Germany and the UK) and from China and Russia to
present Iran a new offer for negotiations.
July 19, 2008 Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William
Burns accompanied Solana and representatives of the E3+3 to meet with
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva
Notes
[1] "US rejects Iran's offer for talks on nuclear programme." by Guy
Dinmore, http://www.mideastw eb.org/log/ archives/ 00000467. htm
[2] "Washington hardliners wary of engaging with Iran," by Guy
Dinmore, http://www.mideastw eb.org/log/ archives/ 00000467. htm
[3] "Unprecedented Peril Forces Tough Calls," by Barton Gellman and
Dafna Linzer, Washington Post October 26, 2004, http://www.washingt
onpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/ A62727-2004Oct25 ?language= printer
[4] "Iran: The Gulf Between Us," by Flynt L. Leverett, The New York
Times, January 24, 2006 http://www.brooking s.edu/opinions/
2006/0124middlee ast_leverett. aspx
[5] "Ex-NSC Official Says White House Is Stifling His Criticism of Iran
Policy," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, December 19, 2006; also
http://www.eurasian et.org/departmen ts/insight/ articles/ eav111606a.
shtml .
[6] "A missed opportunity with Iran," by Gregory Beals, Newsday,
February 19, 2006, www.newsday. com/news/ nationworld/ world/ny-
woiran194633735f eb19,0,7023960. story
[7] The Washington Post posted on its website the "Roadmap" faxed by
Guldimann and his cover memo. See: http://media. washingtonpost.
com/wp-srv/ world/documents/ us_iran_roadmap. pdf
[8] "U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue," by Glenn Kessler, June
18, 2006, http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/
06/17/AR20060617 00727_pf. html
[9] Washington Post, February 14, 2007
[10] Newsweek Feb. 19, 2007
[11] Quoted in "The Rogue Weasels," by Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine. com February 16, 2007, http://www.kentimme
rman.com/ news/2007_ 02_16-fp- rogues.htm .
[12] "Rice Denies Seeing Iranian Proposal in '03," by Glenn Kessler,
Washington Post, February 8, 2007, http://www.washingt onpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 02/07/AR20070207 02408.html
[13] "Ex-aide says Rice misled Congress on Iran," By Carol Giacomo,
Reuters, February 15, 2007 http://www.reuters. com/article/
topNews/idUSN143 3692720070215
[14] Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage interviewed by
PBS Frontline about the Guldimann initiative July 12, 2007.,
http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/ showdown/ interviews/
armitage. html
[15] http://www.newameri ca.net/pressroom /2007/raw_ story_quotes_
flynt_leverett_ on_secretary_ rice_and_ iran
[16] Also quoted in "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran
That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know," by John H. Richardson,
Esquire Magazine, October 18, 2007, http://www.esquire. com/features/
iranbriefing1107 -4 .
[17] Armitage interviewed by PBS Frontline about the Guldimann
initiative July 12, 2007., http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/
showdown/ interviews/ armitage. html
[18] "Bin Laden Son Plays Key Role in Al Qaeda," by Douglas Farah and
Dana Priest, Washington Post,
October 14, 2003 http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/ 08/20/AR20070820 00980_pf. html
[19] See also "The Guldimann Memorandum: The Iranian ‘roadmap' wasn't a
roadmap and wasn't Iranian," by Michael Rubin, Weekly Standard, October
22, 2007, http://www.meforum. org/article/ 1764
[20] "U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue," by Glenn Kessler, June
18, 2006, http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/
06/17/AR20060617 00727_pf. html
[21] Kristof asserts that there was a second Iranian proposal, edited
from an American original draft of unknown provenance, by Iran's UN
Ambassador, Javad Zarif. "It was approved as the master statement of
the Iranian position. Iran faxed it to the State Department and sent
it, through an intermediary, to the White House ... I can't verify that
the Iranian versions were received, or at least reviewed by senior
officials." Kristof does not say by whom or when the alleged Iranian
approval was given, nor by whom or when it was faxed. "Diplomacy at
Its Worst ," by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, April 29, 2007,
http://donkeyod. wordpress. com/2007/ 04/28/diplomacy- at-its-worst/ .
See also, "Iran's Proposal for a ‘Grand Bargain'," By Nicholas D.
Kristof, New York Times Blog, April 28, 2007, http://kristof. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 04/28/irans- proposal-
for-a-grand- bargain/ Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation
asserted that Ambassador Zarif affirmed to him that he had written a
large part of such an Iranian proposal for a grand bargain, and it had
"full authorization from the top...I think this definitively resolved
the question of ownership of that process." Remarks during a seminar
on "A Grand Bargain with Iran," New American Foundation, Washington
D.C, October 7, 2008. http://www.newameri ca.net/events/ 2008/grand_
bargain_iran
[22] Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel,
Iran, and the U.S.," Yale University Press, 2007, p. 248
[23] Testimony Before House Committee On Oversight And Government
Reform, Subcommittee On National Security And Foreign Affairs,
http://www.accessmy library.com/ coms2/summary_ 0286-33375359_ ITM .
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|