Some People Won’t Take Yes for an Answer
Gareth Porter offers more detail on the 2003 Iranian proposal for comprehensive negotiations with the United States, saying that Iranian-American Middle East Scholar Trita Parsi of Johns Hopkins has obtained a copy of the proposal summary. Let’s skip to the good part, shall we?
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered “acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration”, which it also referred to as the “Saudi initiative, two-states approach.”
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League’s first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel’s withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran’s proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a “stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory” along with “pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967″.
Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take “action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon”.
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for “full access to peaceful nuclear technology”. It offered “full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)”.
In other words, Iran was willing to play ball on every security issue that we claim vexes us. In return?
In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran’s public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a “Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.,” as well as the “abolishment of all sanctions.”
Also included among Iran’s aims was “recognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity.” According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran’s status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.
Which is to say, Iran wanted the United States to acknowledge reality: “We’ve been here since your people were in caves and we won’t be going anywhere. Let’s deal.”
Surely this story sounds too good to be true and deserves checking out. How about starting with Professor Parsi?
Dear Jim – please see the stories by Barbara Slavin and Guy Dinmore (USA TODAY/FT), both linked on my website.
They have confirmed with Flynt Leverett – who worked at the NSC at the time – that the documents I refer to are authentic.
That’s Parsi’s e-mail to me of about fifteen minutes ago. The FT article has slipped behind the pay wall. But Slavin’s USA Today piece can still be read for free. Excerpt:
The United States rejected a previous offer from the government in Tehran. Three years ago, Iran prepared an agenda for talks that included the nuclear issue, terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, said Sadegh Kharrazi, a former Iranian ambassador to France who helped draft the document. The Bush administration rebuffed the offer, said Flynt Leverett, a former Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council.
A copy of the agenda, which was verified by Leverett and Kharrazi, lists a broad range of topics for negotiations.
Among Iran’s goals: no longer being referred to as a member of the “axis of evil,†language Bush used against Iran, Iraq and North Korea in 2002.
Copy of the memo, authenticity confirmed by both sides. More from Porter’s piece:
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. “Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it,” he said in an interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran’s foreign policy, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was “directly involved” in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
If the United States goes to war with Iran, it will be because the White House really wants a war with Iran.
Comment by Jackmormon —
May 25, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here. Khatami had tried to make very back-channel overtures to Clinton, but every time Clinton tried to reply, through various cut-out channels, he got silence in return; Ken Pollack concluded that the hardliners within the government were stymying Khatami’s attempts at rapprochement. So what’s to say that either 1) Bush didn’t try to reply or 2) Bush didn’t think a reply would work?
To answer the first, there’s obviously Bush’s character and stated policy objectives. As for the second, perhaps a number of conservative analysts advised Bush that the difficult, conciliatory, politically unpopular path was likely not to yield immediate results.
Ball most definitely dropped. Would the Iranians have sustained negotiations at that point, though? I think that’s hard to say.
(I’m so passionately against bombing Iran that I resist any analysis that suggests that the point of no return was some time in the past. That’s my caveat.)
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 25, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
”…along with ’pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967’.”
Not a very great concession, since it still preserves the right to slaughter uncounted numbers of civilians outside said borders, and equally to do the same to police and IDF personnel within the ’67 borders.
The fact that most (everyone not taking the religious, or a medical, exemption) Israeli males, and a great many Israeli females serve in the IDF and remain reserves for decades thereafter would seem to therefore limit the number of people off-limits here to children, some adult females, and the adult males who take the ultra-Orthodox religious study exception, a few cripples, and only within the ’67 limits.
In other words, hardly anyone. Also not so useful when Islamic Jihad won’t sign on. Clever wording, though.
Re Hezbollah, dunno if you read my post from early today (bunch more posts since), but this is also giving away something Hezbollah has subsequently given away, and already had identical reasons for having then given away. (But meanwhile, Hezbollah is still not giving up its guns or thuggish nature.)
No argument with the rest of your points and post, as usual.
Comment by Nell —
May 25, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
Ken Pollack concluded that the hardliners within the government were stymying Khatami’s attempts at rapprochement.
When and in what forum, Jackmormon?
(Adding to your ’answer’ column, Pollack is neither an especially distinguished analyst nor disinterested player.)
I know what you mean about resisting fatalistic analysis. But I’m down to hoping that some higher power spirits Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, all their acolytes, and most of the AEI fellows and Benador Associates roster off to a parallel universe. By the end of July.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
May 26, 2006 @ 1:05 am
Testing. There’s a calendar in the way.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
May 26, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Okay, that went through. You might be overanalyzing Gary. I understand that there are Palestinians (like Marwan Barghouti (sp?)) who argue that terror attacks are wrong inside 1967 Israel, but a legitimate form of resistance against the settlers. Not good enough, morally speaking, but not as bad as the interpretation you give the Iranian statement. Your reading could be right, of course.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 26, 2006 @ 2:06 am
”I understand that there are Palestinians (like Marwan Barghouti (sp?)) who argue that terror attacks are wrong inside 1967 Israel, but a legitimate form of resistance against the settlers.”
You got the spelling right. I’m not sure that his argument is that it’s ”wrong,” but he does think it’s a bad idea. But it’s hardly news that this has been the Fatah position for a bunch of years now.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to mindread anyone in Iran, since I’m not actually capable of that; I was simply trying to say that that specific bit of language isn’t remotely as encouraging as it might superficially appear. (Not that, as I’ve written jillions of times, I hold all the various Israeli governments blameless in I/P relations, and I specifically pointed in that last post to Kadima Minister Ramon’s comments about wanting to hold onto a Hebron settlement as a horrible notion.)
But in diplomacy, it’s important to not reflexively reject, just because one has valid grounds on either side for distrust, as well, of course.
But it’s very hard to write anything at all accurate about Israeli/Palestinian relations or history in under ten or twenty thousand words, due to all the complications.
But I do think two things are crucial to keep in mind: what the majority of both people’s will accept is dynamic, and changes with events, as well as leadership, not static, and the majority of both peoples do want some form of compromise peace and two states, regardless of what the extremists on both sides claim and point to. (I put a fair amount of data into that post, among others over the years.) It’s important to disregard those who cherry-pick statements from extremists who claim that reveals the real Sekrit Agenda of the majority of the Other Side. They’re talking fear and hatred and crap. (Admittedly with some cause for both sides.)
What the Iranian leadership wants, I lean away from guessing for now.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 26, 2006 @ 7:15 am
Couple quick and very partial responses.
To Jackmormon: As to ”So what’s to say that either 1) Bush didn’t try to reply or 2) Bush didn’t think a reply would work?” we can eliminate the first based on the testimony of Flynt Leverett that the US rebuked the Swiss for passing along the proposal at all. Re the second, I suppose it all depends what definition the Bush Administration applied to ”work.” Also, Ken Pollack: phooey. I have a link around here for you somewhere.
To Gary: I don’t quibble with your reading of the violence sections. As we must reiterate over and over with regard to recent (post-9/11) Iran-US contacts, nobody’s opening proposal is their final proposal. We have to reiterate this because Approved Opinion keeps acting as if they are. Frex, last month’s more businesslike follow-up to the Ahmadinejad letter was dismissed as not fully meeting US demands and therefore no reason to start negotiating. But if it fully met US demands what would the two sides negotiate about, anyway?
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 26, 2006 @ 8:21 am
Agreed, Jim.
I’ve also pointed out before that Iran was willing to deal with Israel sub rosa in the past, such as in obtaining Hawk missiles and weapons parts during Iran-Contra. Now, they were in an existential war, during which one is inclined to do that which one might not otherwise do, but nonetheless, it does demonstrate some minimal precedent for compromising absolutism in dealing with the ”Zionist entity.”
Didja notice that at last night’s press conference (didn’t see it, just read about it, myself), Bush called the letter ”interesting”? A small step, but noticiable. (Also, more contrite on Iraq than ever before, which I call ”interesting.”)
Comment by Jackmormon —
May 26, 2006 @ 8:31 am
Nell: well, that the account he gives in Chapter 11 of The Persian Puzzle, anyway. See especially pp. 319-31.
I know he’s a tainted source for many (the Iraq book, the lack of Persian-language skills), but I thought that he was at least somewhat credible on MENA FP decision-making within the US government, that he presented Insider Conventional Wisdom. Am I wrong about that?
Comment by Nell —
May 26, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Pollack at least somewhat credible on MENA FP decision-making within the US government?
That he might be, but what you quote him on is decision-making within the Iranian government, and there I give him little to no credibility.
He does — or at minimum is a hired hand for people with a track record of doing –what Gary rightly decries: dismissing the Other Side by portraying it as too rigid and extreme to negotiate with.
But please hang in there with devil’s advocacy. I freely admit to being so jaundiced that my judgment may be impaired. When I hear certain names, the hair goes up on the back of my neck and I stop giving even the slightest benefit of the doubt. Worse: I impute sinister motives. One of those names is Martin Indyk. When I learned he brought Pollack to the Saban Center at Brookings, my mind closed.
Comment by Jon H —
May 26, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Jackmormon writes: ”I thought that he was at least somewhat credible on MENA FP decision-making within the US government, that he presented Insider Conventional Wisdom. Am I wrong about that?”
I suppose that may be true, if you assume what he’s saying is the actual Insider Conventional Wisdom, as opposed to being rhetoric intended to futher the aims of the Insiders.
In other words, he may be an Insider, but is he telling you what the insiders believe, or is he telling you what the insiders want *you* to believe?
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 26, 2006 @ 10:00 am
”One of those names is Martin Indyk.”
Because?
I’m aware of the animus against Pollack, though I also don’t hold to it. I think language skills are a significant benefit to being a good country-analyst, but hardly mandatory, and I don’t hold to the idea that having gotten notions about Iraqi WMD wrong makes one an incompetent (or worse) fool, either; nor have I seen reason to believe Pollack was intentionally dishonest or giving opinions because of any alignmnent with George Bush and minions (I may simply not know enough about this, to be sure). Pointing out where he was wrong is obviously entirely reasonable.
But what’s up with Indyk?
”When I hear certain names, the hair goes up on the back of my neck and I stop giving even the slightest benefit of the doubt. Worse: I impute sinister motives.”
Kudos to you for (unsurprising) honesty about this; I have to say that that sort of thing drives me absolutely crazy on a pretty frequent basis. Suspicion, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable response, in my view, to some names. But even the worst villains are right about some things sometimes.
Guilt-by-association-of-opinion, though, I hold in very very low regard, indeed. (If I believed in it, I’d have to dismiss all anti-war views, because Justin Raimondo, quasi-proto-fascist, also holds many [though he’s fine with defending the Japanese in WWII, and Milosevic, and Pat Buchanan’s views on Germans and Jews, worships Buchanan, etc.], for instance — which would be crazy.)
Comment by Hesiod —
May 26, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
This is proof of just how scrwed up Bush and his people really are. The 2003 overture seems like a direct reaction to the US invasion of Iraq! So why in the world would the dummies in the Bush administration tout the questionable Qadaffi deal, with tenoius ties to the Iraq war, at best, over a REAL concrete peace offering from the Iranian mullahs?
If nothing else, taking ths overture seriously might have staved off the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
Impeachment is too good for these people.
Comment by Bill —
May 26, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
Wake up Jim!
”Someone should tell Henley to wake up. ”
(From a discussion linked to this one.)
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 26, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
Dare I ask where this discussion is to be found?
Comment by Bill —
May 27, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Jim it is here:
http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22755
I would not recommend joining in as it usually degenerates to name calling.
I thought it was ironic as the level of discussion here at UO, on this topic, has been clear, balanced and well informed. I directed some people to it and that was their response.