Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

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:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Gareth Porter

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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.

The two documents were made available on the website of the Washington Post online edition in connection with a story by Post reporter Glenn Kessler. Kessler wrote that they had been provided by "a source who felt its contents were mischaracterised by State Department officials."

The memo from Guldimann, dated May 4, confirms previous reports that the Iranian proposal was drafted by the Iranian Ambassador in Paris Sadeq Kharrazi, in consultation with Guldimann but only after extensive discussions between Kharrazi and the three top figures in Iranian foreign policy: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, then President Mohammad Khatami and his Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi.

As the memo notes, Ambassador Kharrazi, a former deputy foreign minister, was extremely well connected to the very top level of Iranian leadership. Khamenei's son is married to his sister, and the foreign minister is his uncle.

The memo recounts that a first draft of what was to be called a "roadmap" was done by Ambassador Kharazzi with Guldimann's help during a long discussion on Apr. 21, 2003. It was that document that Parsi later obtained from Iranian sources and has been reported in previous accounts of the proposal. After that initial meeting Kharrazi had two long meetings with Khamenei, President Khatami and the foreign minister which he reported as lasting a total of four hours.

According to Kharrazi's account, the three leaders agreed on "85%-90%" of the draft roadmap, with the president and foreign minister voicing no objection and Khamenei raising "some reservations as for some points". Guldimann reported in his memo that Kharrazi asked him at a meeting on May 2 to make "some minor changes in the previous draft," especially on the Middle East peace process.

In the final draft, which has now been made public, the bullet point on "U.S. aims" on the Middle East regarding the Palestinian-Israeli peace issue was changed from "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration (Saudi initiative, two states-approach)" to simply "acceptance of the two-states-approach".

The intention behind that shift is made clearer by the only other substantive change in the newly released final draft. In the discussion of a possible "decision on the first mutual steps" the document suggests that the Iranians would issue a "statement that it supports a peaceful solution in the Middle East, that it accepts a solution which is accepted by the Palestinians and that it follows with interest the discussion on the Roadmap, presented by the Quartet." That formula would allow the Iranian side to maintain a position of support for "the Palestinians" in negotiations with Washington.

Guldimann's memo reports that Kharrazi told him all three leaders supported the initiative. But the Iranian diplomat asked him if he could pass the proposal "very confidentially to someone very high in the DoS [Department of State] in order to get to know the U.S. reaction on it." He also warned that, "if the initiative failed, and if anything about the new Iranian flexibility outline in it became known, they would -- also for internal reasons -- not be bound by it."

That was a clear indication that the Iranian leaders were afraid that their conservative critics would attack them if such a proposal did not bring desired results, charging that it showed weakness.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, karl rove

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
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]

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement