May 27, 2006

THE BASIS FOR THE BUSH/KHAMENEI SUMMIT (via Tom Morin):

Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel' (Gareth Porter , 3/26/06, Asia Times)

Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United States.

The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-US agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by Inter Press Service (IPS), was conveyed to the US in late April or early May 2003. [...]

The negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to US hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had criticized Arab governments that 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".


There's no excuse for not using a weapon an enemy hands you.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 27, 2006 4:14 PM
Comments

It's not enough. Iran's support for Palestinian terrorism is less than the EU's.

They need to offer, at a minimum, a credible, verificable end to their nuclear program and the giving up of whatever nuclear weapons they may already have.

Posted by: pj at May 27, 2006 4:36 PM

Odd, how the minuet drifts towards the bedroom.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 27, 2006 5:17 PM

We'll sell them nuclear weapons in a few years--all that matters is a few easy internal reforms.

Posted by: oj at May 27, 2006 6:01 PM

That's a tad outre, but I agree that's the direction the relationship is likely to take. Eventually. Maybe within a decade.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 27, 2006 7:17 PM

We'll sell them nuclear weapons in a few years

Heavens, OJ, is that comment a typo, a joke, a troll, or evidence of schizophrenia? I don't think we've ever sold nukes to anyone, even the Brits.

Posted by: PapayaSF at May 28, 2006 3:15 AM

Britain didn't matter. We need Israel, India, Australia, Japan, & Iran to have nukes, so they do or will.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2006 8:23 AM

I know I'll be sorry for asking, but why do we need Iran to have nukes?

Posted by: erp at May 28, 2006 8:13 PM

To keep the Sunni in line.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2006 9:50 PM

Erp: mysterious to many is the heirarchy of threats according to OJ. Darwin: huge threat, must regularly disinter corpse for abuse. Apocalypse-minded, terrorist-supporting mullahs with nukes? That's a good thing!

Posted by: PapayaSF at May 29, 2006 5:41 PM

Islamicists have killed a few thousand people but have no popular appeal even within Islam and certainly none in the West. The Darwinists have killed tens of millions and even here in America a few still buy their anti-human ideology. Though, happily, no one with political power.

Posted by: oj at May 29, 2006 5:55 PM
« A NATION OF DAVIDS (via Tom Morin): | Main | LET US NUKE THEM FOR YOU (via Tom Morin): »