It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran offered to Help Stablize Iraq in 2003

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:22 AM
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson told the BBC's Newsnight program Wednesday that right after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; Iran offered to help stabilize the country. The also offered to end it's support for Hamas and Hezbollah and to make its nuclear program morre transparent if we agreed to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, based in Iraq. According to Wilkerson the State Department thought a good time to strike a deal "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice President's office, the old mantra of 'we don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."
LONDON - An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Well now this is interesting... if this is true all I can say is way to go Dick.

Dogmatism and ideology trump pragmatism once again in this Administration to the determent of our long suffering troops. Lawrence Wilkerson has been a critic of this administration's foreign policy in general and Dick Cheney specifically for some time now. Of course to hear the White House tell it the numerous former diplomats, generals and officials like Wilkerson who have come out in opposition to the Bush/Cheney policies are a bunch of sour grapes. Unfortunately as the implications of their policies become more and more apparent, the sour grapes argument reads more like what it really is, denial.

Of course the State Department denies any such offer ever happened... but what do you expect?

So who do you believe, a highly reputable former diplomat and official or an administration that has forgotten that denial is NOT a river in Egypt?

Related News Links:

[edit on 19-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:38 PM
Is funny how the present administration due to his hidden goals in the middle east will fall flat on his butt denying this before agree to actually talk with Iran.

We all know the reasons.

But is not the first time that Iran has offered help, the prime minister of Iraq send a letter to the US before.

Also even the bipartisan Iraqi group in their study talks about including Iran and Syria.

But like I say we all know why Bush doesn't want any talks, he is on his own littler world of how he wants the middle east to look like after he finish with it.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:52 PM
I think this is a good example of who is really running things in Washington, but at the same time you must realize that we have a long history of distrust with Tehran. I can understand this proposal might have had some legs unless the agenda was for a wider conflict. That is why it was not considered.

And grover, even though we don't agree on some things, I think you do a good job reporting for ATSNN, so keep up the good work.

[edit on 1/19/2007 by Hal9000]

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:12 PM
I think the bad blood with Tehran is due to that time in history that our nation was supporting the Shah that happen to be an oppressor but they were friendly to the US.

When the people took him out, US didn't like Iran very much anymore.:Lil:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:34 AM
This is true Marge. In 1953 the people of Iran overthrew the much hated Shah and established a republic whose new prime minister was said to be socialist leaning. In the real politik of the cold war this could not stand so the CIA arranged a coup and reintstalled the Shah who held power with a heavy fist for the next 25 years until he was again overthrown. Much evil has come from our actions in 1953 but the people who live with their heads in the sand and claim such an account of history is blaming America first, simply can't accept the truth... and much evil has come from that.

When we look at the list of ham fisted dictators that we supported during the cold war because they were "anti-communist" and look at the list of duly elected governments that we had overthrown because of their "socialist leanings"... the right's claim that we went in and overthrew Saddam Hussein because he was a tyrant, and that we wanted to give his people democracy, rings hollow and shallow as it actually is.

We went into Iraq for oil and to boost a little man's ego so he could claim he finished what his father couldn't.

Piss poor reasons for all the blood spilled and the lives ruined if you ask me....may the arrogant fools who started this unneeded and unprovoked war rot in hell.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by grover]

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 08:49 AM
Grover isn't how propaganda work?

To make people unaware of the littler mistake that our leaders do in our nation's name?

But occurs ideology blindness rather make people believe that Iran is bad, because it have been bad all alone.

No wonder history in our nation is so poor, keep the people ignorant of history so they do not think and analyzed what has made our world the way it is.

Just make people believe that our nation and their crooked politicians has done only good to the world.

Wake up sleeping masses . . . is not our nation The one doing the deeds but the corrupted power that rules our nation in our names.

Iran is what it is because our politicians has made it what it is.

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:10 AM
The problem was/is with Iraq that the propagander's seem to have believed their own propaganda... in short blinded by their own hubris.

There was an old hippie book of quotes I remember fondly (my age is showing when I say that LOL) that defined propaganda as their lies and public information as our lies.

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:51 AM

Karl Rove, then White House senior political advisor for President George W. Bush, received a copy of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Republican Congressman Bob Ney in early May 2003, according to an Iranian-American scholar who was then on his Congressional staff.

Ney, who pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to prison in January for his role in the Jack Abramov lobbying scandal, was named by former aide Trita Parsi as an intermediary who took a copy of the Iranian proposal to the White House.

Parsi is now a specialist on Iranian national security policy and president of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a non-partisan organisation that supports a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Iran and the United States.

Parsi revealed that the document was delivered specifically to Rove, in an exclusive interview with IPS. Within two hours of the delivery of the document, according to Parsi, Ney received a phone call from Rove confirming his receipt of the document. Parsi said the proposal was delivered to Rove the same week that the State Department received it by fax, which was on or about May 4, 2003, according to the cover letter accompanying it.

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. February 20, 2007

When is this going to become a scandal? Rice lied to congress that she knew nothing about it...this administration has absolutely no crediblity.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by grover]

new topics

top topics


log in