Join the Network!  
ProgressNow Colorado
Diplomacy at Its Worst
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
NY Times April 29, 2007Op-Ed ColumnistDiplomacy at Its Worst By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the U.S. for settling our mutual disputes in a “grand bargain.”

It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I’ve placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.

Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you’ll see that 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 — which makes me ache for my country.

The process began with Afghanistan in 2001-2. Iran and the U.S., both opponents of the Taliban, cooperated closely in stabilizing Afghanistan and providing aid, and unofficial “track two” processes grew to explore opportunities for improved relations.

On the U.S. side, track two involved well-connected former U.S. ambassadors, including Thomas Pickering, Frank Wisner and Nicholas Platt. The Iranian ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif, was a central player, as was an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who heads a friendship group called the American Iranian Council.

At a dinner the council sponsored for its board at Ambassador Zarif’s home in September 2002, the group met Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi. According to the notes of Professor Amirahmadi, the foreign minister told the group, “Yes, we are ready to normalize relations,” provided the U.S. made the first move.

This was shaping into a historic opportunity to heal U.S.-Iranian relations, and the track two participants discussed further steps, including joint U.S.-Iranian cooperation against Saddam Hussein. The State Department and National Security Council were fully briefed, and in 2003 Ambassador Zarif met with two U.S. officials, Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, in a series of meetings in Paris and Geneva.

Encouraged, Iran transmitted its “grand bargain” proposals to the U.S. One version was apparently a paraphrase by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran; that was published this year in The Washington Post.

But Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House. I’ve also posted that document, which Iran regards as the definitive one.

In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring “full transparency” and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Iran offers “active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization.” Iran also contemplates an end to “any material support to Palestinian opposition groups” while pressuring Hamas “to stop violent actions against civilians within” Israel (though not the occupied territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a “mere political organization within Lebanon” and endorse the Saudi initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Iran also demanded a lot, including “mutual respect,” abolition of sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement that Iran did not belong in the “axis of evil.” Many crucial issues, including verification of Iran’s nuclear program, needed to be hammered out. It’s not clear to me that a grand bargain was reachable, but it was definitely worth pursuing — and still is today.

Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif showed up — but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.

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.

Link


Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
What do you expect?
By Doc Apr 29th 2007 at 8:45 am EDT
Bush's 'Bulldozer Diplomacy' only has one side...his. He seems to be a firm believer in the 'scorced earth' tactics of the Greeks and Romans... when another state doesn't see things from your point of view... burn it to the ground... no matter what it costs.
  
Highest Rated All Network Posts

Lessons from a Quagmire

Posted Nov 21, 2009 12:25am
Comments (0)

Saturday Mailbag: Friday Edition

Posted Nov 20, 2009 6:08pm
Comments (1)

A battlefield in the courtroom

Posted Nov 20, 2009 4:23pm
Comments (1)

Signs of hate, right here in Denver

Posted Nov 20, 2009 1:03pm
Comments (1)

HHS Task Force Mammogram Recs Slammed

Posted Nov 19, 2009 8:52am
Comments (0)

Toddler teacher convicted for DUI on 0.00 breathalyzer and negative drug test - Adams County Justice

Posted Nov 15, 2009 2:52pm
Comments (0)

Got Defense?

Posted Nov 15, 2009 9:41am
Comments (0)

Dave Schultheis is the Worst Person in the World

Posted Nov 12, 2009 5:29pm
Comments (1)

What McInnis might say

Posted Nov 12, 2009 7:23am
Comments (0)

Veteran's Day 2009

Posted Nov 11, 2009 8:38pm
Comments (0)

* NOTE: ProgressNow Colorado is not responsible for the content of member postings.



Search Blog

Make a Donation
Find People
Find Groups
Find Events
Write Officials
Join our group on FacebookFollow us on TwitterProgressive JobwireProgressNow State Partner Colorado Blogs

National Blogs

1536 Wynkoop St., #4A, Denver, CO 80202 | ph: (303) 991-1900 | fax: (303) 991-1902 | progress@progressnowcolorado.org

© 2005-2009 ProgressNow Colorado, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Fair Use Statement. Terms of Service.