Concessions from Iran Rejected –updated–
It\’s a question I\’ve wondered about for a very long time: Why is Dick Cheney
making foreign policy decisions? Enter your snark in the comments, because there
is no good reason other than Mr. Bush isn\’t competent enough to do it on his
own. We\’ve been paying for it since 2001.
Between not
arming the Iraqis, and Bush refusing to listen to We the People, as well
as Congress, it\’s hard to imagine a foreign policy that has ever been worse.
I understand that arming
the Iraqis to the hilt when you can\’t identify friends is risky, but how
in the world to we redeploy without the Iraqis being able to defend themselves,
push back against the insurgency, and bolster their country on their own? Yes,
the Iraqis are in such dire straights that as soon as some of them get weapons
they sell them on the black market, but what alternative do we have at this
point? At least Nixon knew what he was doing.
Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If
we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping
and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to
six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is
on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces
and equipping and arming them.”The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware
to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and
insurgents. …
But it\’s not just Bush\’s policy in Iraq that is endangering this country. As some of you may remember before the Iraq war there were reports that Saddam wanted to surrender.
Perle added that one of the Saudis had information that Saddam was ready
to surrender. “His message was a plea to negotiate with Saddam.”
– Seymour
Hersh
Needless to say, even if you believe that report was real, you can imagine
how it was greeted in the Bush administration. They wanted Saddam out through
means of war, whether you call it preemptive or preventative, because it was
obviously part of a larger scheme.
Now it\’s being reporting that Iran offered \”a package of concessions\” as long
ago as 2003. Why am I not surprised?
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected,
a senior former US official has told the BBC\’s Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups
and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional
on the US ending hostility.But Vice-President Dick Cheney\’s office rejected the plan, the official said.
The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which
the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest
authorities.
The preemptive-preventative war fetish of Mr. Bush and his administration is
killing the country\’s prestige around the world, making us distrusted among
former allies, as well as endangering our own security through the wholesale
dismantling of the U.S. military system, which is under more strain than we\’ve
witnessed in a generation. That the Bush-Cheney foreign policy is endangering the American people should
be evident to everyone by now. That Iran is next on the Bush-Cheney preemptive-preventative
war menu should be too. Why else would they not only refuse concessions, but also walk away from any efforts to engage in diplomacy? The answer is obvious.
UPDATE (11:30 a.m.): Ari Berman has a post up entitled \”No Blank Check on Iran.\” Legislation was introduced last week in the House to back it up, 110th CONGRESS 1st Session, H. J. RES. 14, with co-signers that include Jack Murtha, though with Bush\’s promise of escalation, most everyone\’s attention is on Iraq.
Comments are closed.