Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rove Said to Have Received Iranian Proposal in 2003

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. Posted February 20, 2007.


Who else in the Bush administration was aware of the secret proposal?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"
Karin Zeitvogel, Middle East Online

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Gareth Porter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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.

Ney was chosen by Swiss Ambassador in Tehran Tim Guldimann to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House, according to Parsi, because he knew the Ohio Congressman to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran.

Guldimann helped the Iranians draft the proposal and passed it on the United States.

The White House press office had not responded to a request for a comment on the account naming Rove as the recipient of the Iranian proposal by midday Friday.

The Iranian proposal for negotiations, which suggested that Iran was willing to consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear programme, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel as part of a larger peace agreement with the United States, has become a contentious issue between the Bush administration and its critics in and out of Congress.

The identification of Rove as a recipient of the secret Iranian proposal throws new light on the question of who in the Bush administration was aware of the Iranian proposal at the time. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied in Congressional testimony last week that she had seen the Iranian offer in 2003 and even chastised former State Department, National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency official Flynt Leverett for having failed to bring it to her attention at the time.

At a Capital Hill conference on U.S.-Iran relations Wednesday, sponsored by the New America Foundation and NIAC, Leverett responded to Rice's criticism by saying it was "unthinkable that it would not have been brought to her attention" and demanding an apology from her.

In May 2003, both Rove and Rice were considered to be part of Bush's inner circle on foreign policy matters, along with Vice President Dick Cheney. When Bush met with South Korea President Roh Moo-hyun on May 13, for example, the only advisers accompanying him were Rove and Rice.

The revelation that Rove received a copy of the Iranian negotiating proposal within days of the receipt of the State Department makes it appear very unlikely that Rice was not immediately made aware of the document.

The new account of the transmission of a second copy of the Iranian proposal to the White House coincided with the release Wednesday of both the actual text of the proposal as received in Washington and of the cover memo by Ambassador Guldimann which accompanied it. The two documents contradict the suggestion by Rice and by other State Department officials that Guldimann was acting on his own in forwarding the proposal, and that it did not reflect the intentions of the Iranian government.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: karl rove, iran

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam," was published in June 2005.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Little on Cheney
Posted by: alibaba on Feb 20, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read somewhere, I think from Seymour Hersh, that Cheney had almost singlehandedly rejected the Iranian offer. No mention of that here but it still shows Rice to be almost irrelevant as sectretary of state. It would not be the first time that we end up using military force because of ineffective diplomacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All things considered...........
Posted by: Basenjis on Feb 20, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iranians are hardly interested in commiting mass suicide. The entire world knows about the mighty US nuclear arsenal and it stands to reason that a non-nuclear country like Iran is not going to seriously challenge the western armed giant. Why would they not have tried to come to some kind of terms with the Bush Administration who has made no secret of their contempt for Iran as part of the "axis of evil?" And who would any longer believe anything at all this government says? Surely they take us all for a pack of fools!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and another side of Iran Posted by: mcooley
» RE: and another side of Iran Posted by: mcooley
» RE: All things considered........... Posted by: monkeywrench
Will somebody PLEASE prosecute this creep?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 20, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can hardly wait until that doughy little backstabber Rove follows Ney to prison, preferably ending up sharing a cell with a maniac named "Bubba" who's lost a close friend in Iraq. Rove deserves to have someone do to him what he's done to America for the last six years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Dover, Ben" Posted by: nor cal surfer
Bully boys
Posted by: willymack on Feb 20, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing seems pretty evident. The rest of the world is scared half to death of the USA, and can you blame them? North Korea embarked on its own Manhattan Project following bush's branding it as part of the "axis of evil" as did Iran. They made some brave and foolhardy statements of defiance towards us, which betrayed their fear. Now, look at what's happened in North Korea as a result of diplomacy. They've promised to discontinue their nuclear weapons project. If it's true that Iran made peaceful overtures toward us in 2003 that weren't publicized or acted upon in a positive manner, is it any wonder that they'd do something aimed at getting our attention? If we can have talks with North Korea, why not with Iran? Karl Rove is just one snake in a nest of vipers. You can bet any peaceful overture on the part of Iran was seen by cheney as well. The attack on Iran was probably planned at the same time as the Iraq tragedy was. Will we be able to stop the homicidal maniacs in Washington from using some flimsy pretext to attack Iran? It doesn't seem likely, short of removing them from office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bully boys Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Bully boys Posted by: MindyB
Stupid Article. Gov't has 'studies' and 'plans' for contingencies
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 20, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
many, if not all, never happen. Remember the criticism of 11-Sept? That we 'had no plan', that 'we we surprised', etc? Now, the gov't starts to have more contingency and game plans and they are criticised for doing so. Ridiculous. The Army, as well as other branches of gov't from the military to the education department funds studies of MANY topics, situations, contingencies, plans, scenarios, etc. Some are 'big' or 'complex' (war with China, attack on Iran, disease outbreak in the US, run on the banks, etc) some are banal and boring (traffic patterns planning, studies of tariffs on commodities, farm substity studies, etc.) Many businesses and individuals, who are successful, also try to plan ahead and figure out possible outcomes and scenarios. Heck, companies like the infamous "RAND corporation" exist only to make these scenarios. People, unfamiliar with business or government, assume since "there is a plan" that it means that everything studied/drawnup is implemented.

This is not to say that in this case its not going to happen that we attack Iran, but this idea of 'having a plan' is wrong, or somehow nefarious, is ridiculous. I hope we have plans and studies for almost any scenario. Better than 'flying by the seat of your pants' or simply being in a position of 'responding' with no data or plan. I would hope the author doesn't use this 'logic' in their personal and financial life. Everyone should plan ahead, save for the future, 'figure out the angles', go through scenarios, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» remember Nixon? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: remember Nixon? Posted by: mcooley
» RE: remember Nixon? Posted by: edith
» RE: remember Nixon? Posted by: CatDad
Anyone looking forward to Rove's son, 17, enlisting on his 18th birthday?
Posted by: xbj on Feb 21, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just know, as I'm sure all of you all do, that Rove, being the great patriot that he is, will surely INSIST his son enlists in the Army the day he turns eighteen, and that his son receive no special treatment from the Army, and be sent immediately after boot camp to Iraq to participate in the "vitally necessary surge." And in respect to all the troops surging, get every bit as much front line duty as the troops who have been there already, some on their third and fourth deployment. The true way to show support for the troops.

I'm sure as great a patriot as Rove would insist upon this. And that as great patriots, Bush and Cheney would also insist their daughters immediately enlist as well, under the same exact conditions and with the same exact "support the troops" and "support the surge" results.

That is, unless of course the "War" "Against" "Terror" is just a big Goddamned (literally) scam designed to "sacrifice" the children of the poor and middle class to make Bush, Cheney, and Rove richer. Which, so far, IS THE ONLY THING REMOTELY "GOOD" TO COME OUT OF THIS DEBACLE.

And even that being "good" is debatable, because of the cost to THE REST OF THE WORLD, including American taxpayers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War is evil...
Posted by: SevenStarHand on Feb 21, 2007 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much evidence is necessary before more people conclude that the "support the troops" mantra is a purposeful deception? These young people, on both sides of this conflict, are cannon fodder for corporate profits and geopolitical goals. They have been deceived into fighting a war and many others have been deceived into thinking that religious and political leaders are actually sincere in their assertions about war, the troops, etc. People who tout so-called religious values while beating the drums of war either can't discern good from evil or are actively being deceptive.

War is evil, pure and simple. The only humane way to "support the troops" is by ending all wars and seeking true and just solutions to human needs.

Here is Wisdom !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]