Iran offered US Serious peace deal in 2003

So why hasn't anyone heard of this? In this Inter-Press Service article, it emerges that Iran made a serious offer to the US to stop funding Palestinian terrorists and accept peace with Israel.

Of course, the Bush Administration didn't even reply.

The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003.

So, I repeat my question. Why has this been kept so quiet? We hear about all the sabre-rattling that Iran does in trying to persuade the US that invading yet another peaceful sovreign nation would be a bad idea, but this is the first I've heard about this. Why wasn't it acted upon? All the Iranians want is a non-aggression pact with the US.

I have my own ideas as to the answers to these questions but I shall be interested to see what the response to this post is.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by kinglizard]

I for one have never seen it before, but that doesn't suprise me in the least -GW Bush and co and the puppet masters are gagging for a war against Iran for some reason...and a little thing like a good diplomatic effort to make middle east peace wont get in the way..

Its a sad day for the world when all this could of been stopped many years ago - and Israel and the middle east could be living in peace and harmony - no wonder irans a bit piffed off with america to say the least!

Originally posted by rich23
So, I repeat my question[s]:
Why has this been kept so quiet?

It was in the best interest of The Agenda.

We hear about all the sabre-rattling that Iran does in trying to persuade the US that invading yet another peaceful sovreign nation would be a bad idea, but this is the first I've heard about this.

That's what happens when something isn't in-line with The Agenda.

Why wasn't it acted upon?

Because doing so may have harmed The Agenda.

All the Iranians want is a non-aggression pact with the US.

But that's not part of The Agenda.

I have my own ideas as to the answers to these questions but I shall be interested to see what the response to this post is.

I hope I've helped.


[edit on 21-9-2006 by BitRaiser]

Well... I was hoping for some posts that might raise an opposing point of view. Would you care to define The Agenda a little more closely?

Hmmmm, the Iranians offered a TWO PAGE document that would solve all of our disagreements and we didn't accept it?

Two HUNDRED pages wouldn't even begin to scrape the paint off of the problems between Iran and the US! This is gloabl politicking and sadly, you have taken the bait hook, line and sinker! The UN Security council has offered Iran a way towrd peace and they haven't accpeted it - how about that? Why aren't we talking about Iran succumbing to the will of the United Nations and the MAJORITY of the other countries in the world?

Why is this an immediate conspiracy by the United States? Obviously there are way too many non-thinking Marxists populating ATS these days. Some day, when the majority of you grow up and learn a few things about, oh say, world history, global politics etc... you might actually gain some insight into what is really happening around you. Until then, I guess you'll just keep drinking their Kool-aid from the end of a fire hose. G'day.

Not so fast kozmo,

In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

This proposal was genuine because Swizerland is handling all diplomatic relations between US and Iran.
US government dropped the ball on this one or they purposely choose to ignore it.


[edit on 21-9-2006 by yanchek]

Originally posted by kozmo
Why aren't we talking about Iran succumbing to the will of the United Nations and the MAJORITY of the other countries in the world?

I think this quote strikes to the heart of the ignroance of this poster.

The US, as is usual, is driving the path to war against Iran. The United Nations is resisting, and if you think that the MAJORITY of the other nations agree, please feel free to quote statements from other nations to back this up. And you'll need about seventy nations before you even begin to get a slim majority.

But I think the phrase about "succumbing to the will" says it all, really. Iran should know their place, and that place is under the heel of the US - whom you didn't mention... except to presume (incorrectly) that they were in the MAJORITY (love those caps).

For a real instance of a majority vote in the UN, how about this one?

Text urging negotiations on Fissile Material Treaty

approved by Disarmament Committee

The General Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, according to one of three drafts approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

That draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (Israel, United Kingdom), as the Committee continued taking action on all draft resolutions and decisions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The Committee has organized its draft texts into subject “clusters”, and this morning it approved texts in its clusters on nuclear weapons, other disarmament measures, and international security.

Explaining her negative vote on the fissile material cut-off treaty draft, the representative of the United States said that, while her country stood behind the idea of such an instrument, its experts had decided that effective verification would not be possible. Since verification was central to the draft at hand, she had therefore been forced to vote in opposition.

Excuses, excuses... but, fyi, that's what a real MAJORITY looks like.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by rich23]

An offer to have discussions is NOT an offer of peace! The author of the thread presented this information (IN a very biased manner) to denote that Iran offered the US a peace agreement and tacit recognition of Israel and we declined. That is not only summarily innaccurate, it is a complete fabrication.

Yes, we as a nation, missed an opportunity to open up dialogue with Iran. However, at that time, we ackowledged that until Iran denounced terrorism and stopped funding Hamas, we would NOT engage them. In short, our Administration took a principled stand on the pre-conditions required for Iran to have direct negotiations with the US. Iran decided to rebuff that demand and, as a result, the US decided to rebuff their overtures for conversation.

What I truly resent is how this is being presented, er, misrepresented by posters who clearly have an anti-administration agenda! The truth will set them free.

Oh, I forgot...

Originally posted by kozmo
Obviously there are way too many non-thinking Marxists populating ATS these days. Some day, when the majority of you grow up and learn a few things about, oh say, world history, global politics etc... you might actually gain some insight into what is really happening around you. Until then, I guess you'll just keep drinking their Kool-aid from the end of a fire hose. G'day.

I rather suspect that my grasp of global politics and history, while a long way from being thoroughgoing, is nonetheless firmer than yours. And this kind of "argument" might sound fine on talk radio, which is where I suspect you have picked up your debating "style", but in a place where people can read through arguments, examine sources, and think things over, it really won't wash.

And that Kool-aid gag... what a weird mixed metaphor. Do you think it was stylish?

YOu calling ME ignorant!? Do you know what you posted above? Do you know what that is? That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Iran or the UN Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate halt to enrichment. That was a clever try on your part to disguise a piece of Treatise on Fissile Material as having something to do with the Iranian issue. In fact, this is dated April 2004 - long before Iranian enrichment was an issue.

So go ahead, obfuscate and attempt to cloud the issue. Fine by me. Like I said before - someday when you learn about world history and global politics we can have dialogue. Until then I have already recognized your agenda and I am not interested. Deny Ignorance!

... I did think it was stylish, and moreover, contained genuine substance - unlike your non-sequitur BS. I have already revealed your anti-administration agenda and have no interest in playing silly little games with marxist idealist. My grasp of world history and global politics plays shame to your amateur style of obfuscation and spin. Deal with the facts. Your assertion which introduces the thread is LIE, plain and simple. Just face the fact that you've been exposed and move on.

Originally posted by kozmo
Yes, we as a nation, missed an opportunity to open up dialogue with Iran. However, at that time, we ackowledged that until Iran denounced terrorism and stopped funding Hamas, we would NOT engage them.

If you'd read the article, you'd have seen that that's precisely what they were offering to do, plus officially recognising the state of Israel and its right to exist. If you can justify rejecting an offer of negotiations until the state concerned has given away its bargaining chips - especially when all they want is a guarantee that the US will not invade them - I can only applaud your commitment to the tactics of the schoolyard bully.

In short, our Administration took a principled stand on the pre-conditions required for Iran to have direct negotiations with the US.

Yeah... the US is renowned for its principled stands throughout the world! They took a principled stand to invade Iraq to disarm a regime that... er... didn't have any arms since the US blew up the ones they had in 1991 - showering their own soldiers with chemical and biological weapons in the process.

"Principled stand..." - pompous, self-serving twaddle.

Iran decided to rebuff that demand and, as a result, the US decided to rebuff their overtures for conversation.

That you cannot see the contradictions in this statement is a testament to the brainwashing power of the US. George Carlin's right... education is terrible in the US because the corporations don't want people who can think critically... they want obedient workers.

As for the truth setting me free... I think what you mean is something like

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Iran could lay down on her knees and blow the United States for peace. It will not happen.

The United States is attacking Iran even though Iran wanted peace and are still open to dialogue today.

Originally posted by kozmo
YOu calling ME ignorant!? Do you know what you posted above? Do you know what that is?

Yes, I do. It was an illustration of a MAJORITY vote in the UN on something that does have relevance to the topic at hand - which includes the topic of non-proliferation. I'm still waiting for you to post anything that shows that the US is on the side of a majority. Resolution 1696 was voted through by the Security Council, which has 15 members, not 147. Just to remind you, you said

...succumbing to the will of the United Nations and the MAJORITY of the other countries in the world?

Here's part of 1696:

The 15-member body called on Iran to without further delay take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which it said were essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of the nuclear programme and resolve outstanding questions. It, meanwhile, underlined the international community’s willingness to work positively for such a solution and encouraged Iran to reengage with the international community and IAEA.

The Council endorsed the proposals of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, for a long-term comprehensive arrangement, which would allow for the development of relations with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

And a recent
report by Mohammed El-Baradei suggests that Iran is complying with the IAEA and that adequate monitoring is in place.

However, the track record of the US on these issues has been pretty consistent in putting forth lies and spin... where ARE those WMDs, btw?

The IAEA, for example, has recently condemned the US House of Representatives report into the situation in Iran, saying it contains many inaccuracies:

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.

Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.

source

In fact, this is dated April 2004 - long before Iranian enrichment was an issue.

The peace offer came in 2003. So what? "The issue", as we saw with Saddam, is always pretty flexible. The US is determined on another war for oil and nothing will stop it. You just don't want to recognise the facts, just like the good Germans of world war II.

So go ahead, obfuscate and attempt to cloud the issue.

Let me spell it out. I was showing you what a real majority looked like - and on an issue that's close to what we're discussing here.

Originally posted by kozmo
... I did think it was stylish, and moreover, contained genuine substance - unlike your non-sequitur BS. I have already revealed your anti-administration agenda and have no interest in playing silly little games with marxist idealist.

Let's just review what you think contains "genuine substance".

Until then, I guess you'll just keep drinking their Kool-aid from the end of a fire hose. G'day.

If you can point to ANYTHING in ANY of my posts that demonstrates that I'm a Marxist, I shall be really surprised. I suspect that your notion of what a Marxist is is as hazy as your grasp of US diplomacy.

My grasp of world history and global politics plays shame to your amateur style of obfuscation and spin.

I have yet to see any evidence for this assertion. You completely missed the point I was making. You have yet to post any sources to back up your assertions. As I say, this kind of debate might sound mighty good on talk radio, but in a thread where people can read, do research, and you're not guaranteed the last word, it doesn't get you very far.

It contradicts nothing. Ahmadinejad is a liar who's secretly building nukes in preparation for a war that he's going to initiate.

Why the heck should the US accept any conditions in order to get iran to stop illegally funding an international terrorist group, and just how would be verified anyway??

The IAEA doesn't agree.

And let's face it - the US has a history of waging unprovoked wars, much more so than Iran.

Originally posted by rich23
The IAEA doesn't agree.

And let's face it - the US has a history of waging unprovoked wars, much more so than Iran.

The IAEA really has no idea, since Iran won't let them conduct complete investigations.

Further, I find it funny that you've posted this, since all it really does is admit that Iran is funding terrorists. I'm no big fan of the Bush agenda, but this really doesn't do much to bring it down, does it?

Originally posted by rich23
The IAEA doesn't agree.

And let's face it - the US has a history of waging unprovoked wars, much more so than Iran.

Please list for me all of the unprovoked wars that the US has initiated against sovereign nations? I shall await this list with bated breath!

Additionally, your assessment regarding the IAEA isn't entirely correct as Iran has not allowed the inspectors the opportunity to verify it's recent claims. Consider the following:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
abcnews.go.com...
www.ft.com...

Time to bone up on your "History", or is this too recent to constitute history?

Originally posted by Astygia
The IAEA really has no idea, since Iran won't let them conduct complete investigations.

Further, I find it funny that you've posted this, since all it really does is admit that Iran is funding terrorists. I'm no big fan of the Bush agenda, but this really doesn't do much to bring it down, does it?

Well, they have a better idea than the US administration, who are, let's face it, proven liars on the subject. And it's been known for some time now that Iran funnels money to Hamas... but then they also, for example, send money to Hizbollah to fund the reconstruction of Lebanon - link

08/24/06 "The Independent" -- -- Hizbollah has trumped both the UN army and the Lebanese government by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars - most of it almost certainly from Iran - into the wreckage of southern Lebanon and Beirut's destroyed southern suburbs. Its massive new reconstruction effort - free of charge to all those Lebanese whose homes were destroyed or damaged in Israel's ferocious five-week assault on the country - has won the loyalty of even the most disaffected members of the Shia community in Lebanon.

The chances of anyone posting anything on here bringing down the Bush administration are, I would say, very slim indeed. All I'm trying to do is make the case that the Iran threat is, as I tried to demonstrate in this thread, a matter of hype from the US and Israel, each of whom - for separate yet interconnected reasons - want Iran neutralised. The US administration is bent on war, and as we have seen in the past, they'll mangle the truth to get at it.

And what is your source for this contention that

The IAEA really has no idea, since Iran won't let them conduct complete investigations.

Because if it's anything to do with the US, then I think we have enough of a track record on them to pretty much dismiss it. Saddam's WMDs, anyone? How soon they forget.