Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Quei fanatici Iraniani...

Washington Post
June 18, 2006
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity
By Glenn Kessler
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years
ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the
Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran
for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested
everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear
programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support
for Palestinian militant groups.
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.
Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed
to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear
program. But several former administration officials say the United
States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength
seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear
program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand.
"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not
enriching uranium", said Flynt Leverett
(
http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/fleverett.htm
), who was a senior
director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the
Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable
effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for US-Iranian rapprochement".
While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual
document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks.
Trita Parsi (
http://www.tritaparsi.com
), a Middle East expert at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from
Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with
Iranian and former U.S. officials.
Dr. Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because
U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to
defeat during a bloody eight-year war.
The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as
ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a
recognition of its "legitimate security interests".
Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full
cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against
terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for
Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state
solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible
steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of
negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic
cooperation.
Newsday has previously reported that the document was primarily the
work of Sadegh Kharazi
(
http://amb-iran.fr/index.php?lang=fr&page=02-02-01
), Iran's ambassador
to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Kamal Kharazi
(
http://tinyurl.com/fryca
) and passed on by the former Swiss ambassador
to Tehran, Tim Guldimann
(
http://www.hrt.hr/auto/arhivvijesti/98/06/29/30.jpg
).
"A missed opportunity with Iran", Newsday (February 19, 2006)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiran194633735feb19.
..
The Swiss government is a diplomatic channel for communications between
Tehran and Washington because the two countries broke off relations
after the 1979 seizure of U.S. embassy personnel.
Flynt Leverett said Tim Guldimann included a cover letter that it was
an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President
Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stressed that the U.S. decision
to join the nuclear talks was not an effort to strike a "grand bargain"
with Iran. Earlier this month, she made the first official confirmation
of the Iranian proposal in an interview with National Public Radio
(NPR).
"What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United
States so that this could be about the United States and Iran", said
Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser when the fax was
received. "Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has
to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest
possible position to be in".
Current White House and State Department officials declined to comment
further on the Iranian offer.
Paul R. Pillar (
http://tinyurl.com/f2dv4
), former national intelligence
officer for the Near East and South Asia, said that it is true "there
is less daylight between the United States and Europe, thanks in part
to Rice's energetic diplomacy". But he said that only partially offsets
the fact that the U.S. position is "inherently weaker now" because of
Iraq.
He described the Iranian approach as part of a series of efforts by
Iran to engage with the Bush administration. "I think there have been a
lot of lost opportunities"; he said, citing as one example a failure to
build on the useful cooperation Iran provided in Afghanistan.
[Jew] Richard N. Haass
(
http://www.cfr.org/bios/3350/richard_haass.html
), head of policy
planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the
Satanic Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), said the Iranian approach
was swiftly rejected because in the administration "the bias was toward
a policy of regime change".
He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully
supported by the "multiple governments" that run Iran, but he felt it
was worth exploring.
"To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole", he said.
"But I didn't see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment
of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the
brink".
Dr. Parsi said that based on his conversations with the Iranian
officials, he believes the failure of the United States to even respond
to the offer had an impact on the government.
Dr. Parsi, who is writing a book on Iran-Israeli relations, said he
believes the Iranians were ready to dramatically soften their stance on
Israel, essentially taking the position of other Islamic countries such
as Malaysia.
Instead, Iranian officials decided that the United States cared not
about Iranian policies but about Iranian power.
The incident "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the
only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not
by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance", Trita Parsi said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR200.
..

possible position to be in".
Concordo.
-Stefano