Following 9-11, Iran was one of the first countries to condemn the attacks on America. Tehran immediately declared the attacks to be horrific, made clear that it had no part in it and as many have said, symbolically offered America an olive branch of peace. Possibility to improve its relations with America heightened when it was announced that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. For years, Tehran had been aiding guerrillas fighting the Taliban and an American invasion of Afghanistan was seen as a positive development, to the extent that Iran enthusiastically offered to assist the U.S. military.
But more important was Iran's indispensable role in establishing the new Afghan government. As may have been forgotten, it was Javad Zarif, Iran's team leader who first suggested a commitment to democratization in Bonn, November 2002, well before the Bush administration began touting the banner of spreading peace and democracy in the Middle East. It was also Zarif who was crucial in negotiating between Pashtun, with other tribes in the south and the Northern Alliance, which lead to the creation of the interim government. A month later in Tokyo, Iran offered to contribute 500 million dollars to rebuild Afghanistan, twice as much as the U.S. had offered.
Iran's well-deserved award and recognition of its contribution to U.S. military operations, the establishment of a new Afghan state and its reconstruction, was received less than two weeks after its pledge in Tokyo. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, on the suggestion of its addition with North Korea by then National Security Advisor, Condoleessa Rice as not to single Iraq out, George W. Bush declared Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil." With such eloquent expression of appreciation, what should Iran learn from this experience? Rapprochement with America will be met with hostility.
Much like how the Bush administration accuses its critics of "forgetting the lessons of 9-11", Iran seems to have forgotten its lesson as well. In the spring of 2003 when America called on Iran to assist in its invasion of Iraq, it was given without resistance. From this, Iran once again attempted to further develop a working relationship. Around mid-May, in a low-level meeting between the two countries Zarif suggested further cooperation. He proposed the possibility of "reciprocity," the exchange of senior Qaeda operatives that Iran had detained in exchanged for captured Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Thus far, this proposal has failed to develop.
Around the same time, Iran offered a two-page proposal for comprehensive bilateral talks. It offered discussing its role in actively pressuring Hezbollah and Hamas to demilitarize and transform into peaceful political organizations as well as "full transparency" of its nuclear program. In return, it requested a "halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of the status of Iran in the U.S. and abolishing sanctions," as well as the pursuit of the MEK. This offer was turned down, mainly from pressure from the intolerant brilliance of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who, in fact, was rather a proponent of using the MEK against Iran.
And the most recent attempt by the Iranian government to reach out to America was an 18-page letter that president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to the Bush government, which was immediately dismissed as "worthless," and was rejected by White House authorities, including Condoleeza Rice. Even with calls for a change in policy from around the world, the Bush administration held fast. Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, and Joschka Fischer, former German foreign minister, were the first to argue the necessity for direct negotiations. Sergey Lavrov, Russian foreign minister warned that Iran could do what North Korea had done in 2003: expel the inspectors and abandon the NPT (As worth noting for comparative purposes, North Korea argued its reasoning behind developing nuclear weapons as self-defense against "the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK."). Even Kofi Annan called on the Bush administration to change its policy and accept the talks. Many around the world viewed Ahmadinejad's letter as yet another offering of an olive branch that America had rejected. It took until 31 May for Rice to publicly announce that the White House was ready to begin talks, but under one condition: that Iran freeze all its nuclear activity prior to negotiations. It is absurd, unreasonable and beautifully harmonious with this administration's foreign policy record that the U.S. demands that Iran fulfill half of the anticipated outcomes of negotiations before even entering the negotiations. Perhaps confusing it with a tribute system, this administration requires its demands be met before discussing its demands.
In spite of the repeated attempts to establish communication and improve relations by Tehran, for reasons which baffle reasonable judgment and beg to question what the Bush administration's intentions are, our current government finds it necessary to continually reject these offers. Whether Iran would have followed through, we will never know.
In this case, is it irresponsible for us as citizens to wait for the smoking gun of our own government? Why has the Bush administration only now drawn a connection, which it claims is more than three years old, between Iran and attacks in Iraq that account for only 5% of all U.S. deaths, from intelligence that has drawn-up an unsound argument by figures who remains anonymous, while a second and perhaps a third aircraft carrier is heading for the Persian Gulf? Why is it necessary to take such great opposition to Iran's nuclear program, which we sponsored in the Shah years, that has not been proven to defy the NPT, which it has signed, while very little criticism was ever given to India when it became nuclear, to Pakistan while it was accumulating a nuclear stockpile, while claiming it wasn't, or to Israel, who to this day has publicly denied having nuclear weapons, contrary to overwhelming evidence that it does, none of which have signed the NPT?
When asked if George Bush was using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran, the president replied, "to say it [claiming the Iranian government is providing weapons to Iraq] is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so." That said, there are many who assert that the Bush administration secretly strives for an excuse to take up arms against Iran. Hillary Mann for example, a former White Hose official told Newsweek that Bush advisers "intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for." At present, we seem well under way and pursuing this avenue.
With an extended history of unwillingness to negotiate with Iran, the Bush administration is incapable of addressing its issues through diplomacy, which may lead Bush to claim once more that deadly prevarication of having "no choice." If this president is able to sell America on a war for reasons knowingly founded on faulty evidence, which has subsequently taken the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and over 3,100 U.S. soldiers, and then have these reasons brutally exposed as false, and still maintains 32% approval rate then there is reason to be terrified when he employs this kind of Star Wars fantasy rhetoric toward Iran.
I will not predict what president Bush's exact intentions are with Iran, although his record is troubling. But like the nature of our occupation of Iraq specifically, our unquestioning support of the Israeli state, our relation with the Saudi royal family or our military presence in the Middle East at large, we must accept our role, our involvement in fostering the danger that American citizens face today.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
