Iran in 'backroom offers' to West

[Fop 1]

Iran in 'backroom offers' to West

By Bridget Kendall

BBC diplomatic correspondent

 

The revelation to the BBC was made by Sir John Sawers, Britain's UN envoy

 

Iran offered to stop attacking British troops in Iraq to try to get the West to drop objections to Tehran's uranium enrichment project, a UK official says.

 

The disclosure by UN ambassador Sir John Sawers in a BBC documentary throws new light on backroom discussions between Iran and the West.

 

Roadside bombing attacks on British and American soldiers in Iraq were at their height in 2005.

 

The extent of Iran's role in arming and training those militias was uncertain.

 

Tehran denied a role, while British officials tended to hedge their accusations with references to 'circumstantial evidence'.

 

Private talks

 

But now a senior British official has revealed that not only did the Iranians privately admit their involvement, they even made an astonishing offer to switch off the attacks in Iraq if in return the West would stop blocking Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

 

 

We stop killing you in Iraq... you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme

Sir John Sawers on the Iranian offer

 

Sir John Sawers, currently Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iranians raised the offer during informal private talks at a hotel in London.

 

"There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other. They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us," he told the BBC.

 

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance.'"

 

The deal was dismissed by the British government and Iran's nuclear enrichment restarted shortly after.

 

Old pattern

 

It is just one incident in a revealing pattern of on-off backroom deals with the Iranians that appear to go back to 2001.

 

Former President Khatami offered to help oust Saddam, the report says

 

It emerges from interviews with both Iranian and American officials that after 11 September, 2001, Tehran collaborated so closely with the US in order to topple the Taleban and remove al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, that they even provided intelligence information to pinpoint military targets for bombing.

 

Hillary Mann, one of the US delegates, remembers how one Iranian military official pounded the table in his eagerness to get the Americans to change targets.

 

"He unfurled the map on the table and started to point to targets that the US needed to focus on, particularly in the north," she told the BBC.

 

"We took the map to Centcom, the US Central Command, and certainly that did become the US military strategy."

 

Over Iraq too, Iran's reformist President Mohammad Khatami offered to collaborate on ousting Saddam Hussein, arguing that the Iraqi leader was also Iran's enemy.

 

But relations deteriorated after former US President George W Bush accused Iran of being part of an "Axis of Evil".

 

Attempts at negotiations initiated by the Europeans in the end led nowhere.

 

Current prospects

 

According to Nick Burns, in charge of Iran policy at the State Department for the Bush administration until last year, the American policy of talking tough with Iran did not prove productive.

 

Iran insists on its right to pursue a nuclear programme

 

"We had advocated regime change," said Mr Burns. "We had a very threatening posture towards Iran for a number of years. It didn't produce any movement whatsoever."

 

The glimpses in this TV documentary of a whole series of backroom talks over several years that on occasion yielded real collaboration would appear to be encouraging.

 

But the impressive collection of interviews does not address what prospects now lie ahead for a possible improvement in relations.

 

And the essential gap remains: without exception all Iranian policy makers, even the reformist Mr Khatami who may well stand again for the post of president this summer, insist on Iran's legal right to pursue its nuclear programme without impediment.

 

But the West remains deeply suspicious and alarmed at what it fears is subterfuge and deliberate procrastination to conceal Iranian plans to be able to make weapons from its uranium stocks, and therefore the Western demand remains that Iran must suspend nuclear enrichment.

 

President Obama's promise to "extend a hand" if Iran "unclenches its fist" may not be enough to break the logjam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7901101.stm

 

 

Some interesting stuff in there, especially to do with Iran's role in destabilising and fuelling violence within Iraq post-Saddam.

 

Also just goes to show what a blow for Iranian/Western Iranian hard-liners rigging the election against Khatami was.

[Guest alex]

Easy to see why they mistrust the west like. Whose side were we on when they were fighting Saddam?

[Fop 1]

Easy to see why they mistrust the west like. Whose side were we on when they were fighting Saddam?

 

Another reason why they so desperately want nuclear weaponry.

 

 

And why they were quite happy to help with getting rid of Saddam - both to be rid of a direct threat (a well armed Saddam was the only "country" capable of challenging them in the area) and of course so they could draw the USA into a bloody war which they could help fight largely from a distance.

 

 

The really sad issue is how close to decent relations everyone came prior to Ahmadinejad and the rigging of Iranian elections, and of course Bush's later crusade.

[Fop 1]

Mind you this does pretty much clear up how much Iran was fuelling the violence in Iraq for their own ends.

[Rob W 0]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

[Park Life 71]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

 

Quite.

[Fop 1]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

 

True, but they were fairly open about it, and were replacing Saddam.

 

 

 

The difference with Iran is they were basically fighting a shadow war and denying all knowledge of it (much like their nuclear weapons program).

 

Yet clearly they were doing it.

 

Also Iran was fuelling the violence, even if every US troop had been pulled out Iran had vested interest in a unstable Iraq that at best eventually came under the control of Shia religious leaders, but even that they wouldn't have like very much (a 3 way split would have been more preferable for them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or do you believe that Iran was justified in stoking Iraq's civil war (it was of course stoking sunni/shia violence too) simply to honk of the USA?

[Park Life 71]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

 

True, but they were fairly open about it, and were replacing Saddam.

 

 

 

The difference with Iran is they were basically fighting a shadow war and denying all knowledge of it (much like their nuclear weapons program).

 

Yet clearly they were doing it.

 

Also Iran was fuelling the violence, even if every US troop had been pulled out Iran had vested interest in a unstable Iraq that at best eventually came under the control of Shia religious leaders, but even that they wouldn't have like very much (a 3 way split would have been more preferable for them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or do you believe that Iran was justified in stoking Iraq's civil war (it was of course stoking sunni/shia violence too) simply to honk of the USA?

 

 

 

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

[Guest alex]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

 

True, but they were fairly open about it, and were replacing Saddam.

 

 

 

The difference with Iran is they were basically fighting a shadow war and denying all knowledge of it (much like their nuclear weapons program).

 

Yet clearly they were doing it.

 

Also Iran was fuelling the violence, even if every US troop had been pulled out Iran had vested interest in a unstable Iraq that at best eventually came under the control of Shia religious leaders, but even that they wouldn't have like very much (a 3 way split would have been more preferable for them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or do you believe that Iran was justified in stoking Iraq's civil war (it was of course stoking sunni/shia violence too) simply to honk of the USA?

You could apply your standard response in the Gaza / Israel thread to the above tbf.

[Park Life 71]

The funny thing is the shia control the Govt. in Iraq.

[Fop 1]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

[Fop 1]

You could apply your standard response in the Gaza / Israel thread to the above tbf.

 

You mean nuke Iran? That's why they want nuclear weapons.

[Fop 1]

The funny thing is the shia control the Govt. in Iraq.

Iran would undoubtedly prefer a strong shia government to a strong sunni one (or Kurdish for that matter), but they'd much rather see a weak anything than any sort of strong Iraq.

[Park Life 71]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

 

 

Was it about removing Saddam?

[Fop 1]

Was it about removing Saddam?

 

Maybe, maybe not. (as both Blair and Bush were/are relgious nutters anything is frankly possible)

 

 

But it doesn't matter in the context of Saddam actually being removed and hopefully democracy replacing him.

 

Nor does it absolve Iran from their calculated murder; whether the USA was doing the right thing, or using Iraq as a football, Iran was kicking back for nothing more than self-gain (and by that I mean Iran in the context of the ruling hard-line Islamofascists, not the actual people of Iran).

[Park Life 71]

Was it about removing Saddam?

 

Maybe, maybe not. (as both Blair and Bush were/are relgious nutters anything is frankly possible)

 

 

But it doesn't matter in the context of Saddam actually being removed and hopefully democracy replacing him.

 

Nor does it absolve Iran from their calculated murder; whether the USA was doing the right thing, or using Iraq as a football, Iran was kicking back for nothing more than self-gain (and by that I mean Iran in the context of the ruling hard-line Islamofascists, not the actual people of Iran).

 

 

Countries doing things for self gain, whatever next??!

[Fop 1]

Was it about removing Saddam?

 

Maybe, maybe not. (as both Blair and Bush were/are relgious nutters anything is frankly possible)

 

 

But it doesn't matter in the context of Saddam actually being removed and hopefully democracy replacing him.

 

Nor does it absolve Iran from their calculated murder; whether the USA was doing the right thing, or using Iraq as a football, Iran was kicking back for nothing more than self-gain (and by that I mean Iran in the context of the ruling hard-line Islamofascists, not the actual people of Iran).

 

 

Countries doing things for self gain, whatever next??!

 

Indeed, including it seems supply, fuel and encourage several sides at once a massively bloody civil war.

 

 

The players may change, but the game stays the same.

 

 

 

(just look at Obama, he may well close Guantanamo in the end [he knows it's a political open wound], but he's just signed off to build a new 1,100 place prison in Afghanistan, to add to the 600 prisoners the USA have that are already being held in Afghanistan in the same limbo as those in Guantanamo, although in significantly worse contritions than Guantanamo - I wouldn't be surprised to see many from Guantanamo being moved there and the media gaze will move onto something more "interesting", maybe Obama's daughters puppy or something - he clearly knows how to play the media at least as well as Blair)

[Rob W 0]

Iran played power politics in the Gulf under the Shah - but then so do the Saudi's and the Iraqi's

 

They want a nuclear weapon becausse they've seen what happens to people who don't have them (Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan) when the Yanks are around compared to those who do (N Korea, China)

[Fop 1]

Iran played power politics in the Gulf under the Shah - but then so do the Saudi's and the Iraqi's

 

They want a nuclear weapon becausse they've seen what happens to people who don't have them (Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan) when the Yanks are around compared to those who do (N Korea, China)

 

 

Yup and a country that will quite happily fuel several sides in a civil war (increasing the death toll massively) just to help get them..... is that a country that you think should have them?

 

 

And you're really struggling if you're having to include Japan, or Afghanistan for that matter, to attempt to bolster your point. I suppose it was Somalian (and Vietnamese and Korean) nukes that got rid of the USA.

[Rob W 0]

Iran played power politics in the Gulf under the Shah - but then so do the Saudi's and the Iraqi's

 

They want a nuclear weapon becausse they've seen what happens to people who don't have them (Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan) when the Yanks are around compared to those who do (N Korea, China)

 

 

Yup and a country that will quite happily fuel several sides in a civil war (increasing the death toll massively) just to help get them..... is that a country that you think should have them?

 

 

And you're really struggling if you're having to include Japan, or Afghanistan for that matter, to attempt to bolster your point. I suppose it was Somalian (and Vietnamese and Korean) nukes that got rid of the USA.

 

Supporting a number of players in this sort of situation isn't unusual - anything to keep the Ynaks bogged down - remember when they went in the neo-cons were threatening to take out anyone and everyone they disagreed with?

 

If I was Iranian I'd be cramming all speed onto getting a bomb - might keep those mad bastards in Israel in check 'n aal - after all they are surrounded by N-Powers - Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and the yanks cruising about offshore and in Iraq. About the only serious local outfit who don't have them are the Torks

[Fop 1]

Iran played power politics in the Gulf under the Shah - but then so do the Saudi's and the Iraqi's

 

They want a nuclear weapon becausse they've seen what happens to people who don't have them (Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan) when the Yanks are around compared to those who do (N Korea, China)

 

 

Yup and a country that will quite happily fuel several sides in a civil war (increasing the death toll massively) just to help get them..... is that a country that you think should have them?

 

 

And you're really struggling if you're having to include Japan, or Afghanistan for that matter, to attempt to bolster your point. I suppose it was Somalian (and Vietnamese and Korean) nukes that got rid of the USA.

 

Supporting a number of players in this sort of situation isn't unusual - anything to keep the Ynaks bogged down - remember when they went in the neo-cons were threatening to take out anyone and everyone they disagreed with?

 

It's not unusual, at all, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether you agree with what they were (and probably still are to a lesser degree) doing?

 

(and do you honestly believe the USA were ever going to do anything to Iran after Iraq? Iraq was a country on its knees, Iran was a completely different prospect no matter the rhetoric)

 

 

If I was Iranian I'd be cramming all speed onto getting a bomb - might keep those mad bastards in Israel in check 'n aal - after all they are surrounded by N-Powers - Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and the yanks cruising about offshore and in Iraq. About the only serious local outfit who don't have them are the Torks

 

So mad bastard Iranians with a nuclear bomb is better?

 

Especially given their fondness for supplying terrorist organisation who have no qualms at all about mass killing civilians?

 

I take it you're also completely against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty then and believe that nukes for all is the only way forward?

[Fop 1]

Iranians start reactor test run

The Bushehr site has been under construction for years

 

Iranian and Russian nuclear officials have begun a test run of Iran's first nuclear power plant.

 

The test - carried out in front of international journalists - involves the reactor being switched on and loaded with dummy rods made of lead.

 

The non-nuclear material is meant to imitate the enriched uranium needed to run the Russian-built plant at Bushehr.

 

The test is likely to fuel fears in the West about Iran's nuclear ambitions, though Tehran says they are peaceful.

 

Operations of the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor have been long delayed, although the reactor is expected to start generating power later this year.

 

'Dramatic step'

 

"The construction stage of the nuclear power plant is over, we are now in the pre-comissioning stage, which is a combination of complex procedures," said Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's nuclear agency.

 

"Today we visited the reactor and saw fuel rod imitators being loaded in the active zone," he added during a visit to Bushehr with his Iranian counterpart Gholam Reza Aghazadeh.

 

The official Irna news agency reported that a date for the plant to become operational would be announced during the pre-commissioning process.

 

Iran is currently defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium. It says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 

The country has pledged not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make nuclear weapons.

 

However, the Iranian authorities hid their uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the Security Council says they should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities until their peaceful intentions can be fully established.

 

BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Iran would have to take the dramatic step of expelling international inspectors and Russian engineers for it to use the Bushehr plant to make nuclear bombs.

 

There is no suggestion of this happening at the moment, he adds.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7908621.stm

[Cid_MCDP 0]

that's a bit of laugh when the US had 100,000 troops in Iraq fueling violence for their own ends

 

True, but they were fairly open about it, and were replacing Saddam.

 

 

 

The difference with Iran is they were basically fighting a shadow war and denying all knowledge of it (much like their nuclear weapons program).

 

Yet clearly they were doing it.

 

Also Iran was fuelling the violence, even if every US troop had been pulled out Iran had vested interest in a unstable Iraq that at best eventually came under the control of Shia religious leaders, but even that they wouldn't have like very much (a 3 way split would have been more preferable for them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or do you believe that Iran was justified in stoking Iraq's civil war (it was of course stoking sunni/shia violence too) simply to honk of the USA?

 

 

 

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Not open about it at all. Our government threw several accusations at the wall intended to piss us Americans off enough to want to kill that little brown man, but what finally did it was the WMDs. Prior to that there was the whole genocide thing, the might-have-maybe-had-something-to-do-with-9/11-(or not) thing, and the he-tried-to-have-George-Bush-Sr.-assassinated thing.

 

In the end though, it wasn't, "We just didn't like the cunt." We blamed it on you guys! It was that danged old incorrect British Intelligence report (disregard the fact we haven't listened to the British about anything remotely militaristic since, oh, WWII...)

[Cid_MCDP 0]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

 

Removing Saddam wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but the way it was gone about was.

 

There's tons of asshole dictators oppressing/ torturing/ killing their people all over the world. That doesn't mean it's ok for the U.S. to go against the U.N. and invade them. In my opinion, that's where we fucked up.

 

Unlike many of my countrymen, I hate this idea of the U.S. being this World Cop. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately only pisses everyone else off. I'd much rather see this country take all of the resources, money, and manpower and use it on itself rather than Iraq. I guess maybe if we had it all figured out with a strong economy, 1% unemployment rate, no racism, and parity between a governmental surplus and defecit for the past 30 years you might be able to talk me into it, but with things being what they are (and were, for that matter- when we got into this mess we weren't much better off as a country), it's hard for me to go rah, rah, rah, we just saved a bunch of Iraqis who never asked to be saved to begin with.

[Park Life 71]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

 

Removing Saddam wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but the way it was gone about was.

 

There's tons of asshole dictators oppressing/ torturing/ killing their people all over the world. That doesn't mean it's ok for the U.S. to go against the U.N. and invade them. In my opinion, that's where we fucked up.

 

Unlike many of my countrymen, I hate this idea of the U.S. being this World Cop. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately only pisses everyone else off. I'd much rather see this country take all of the resources, money, and manpower and use it on itself rather than Iraq. I guess maybe if we had it all figured out with a strong economy, 1% unemployment rate, no racism, and parity between a governmental surplus and defecit for the past 30 years you might be able to talk me into it, but with things being what they are (and were, for that matter- when we got into this mess we weren't much better off as a country), it's hard for me to go rah, rah, rah, we just saved a bunch of Iraqis who never asked to be saved to begin with.

 

It's nothing to do with being a world cop and all about strategic asset grabbing.

 

CIA and Mi6 are still supplying arms and logistics across the planet, even to known Al Kidder (Chechnya etc) to make sure the get oil pipelines and strategic corridors.

 

The last thing it is about is some kind of world cop thing, that's just for consumption by a clueless american public.