Bush's Message to Iran

**Ray** · 15 Sep 06,, 17:28

Bush's Message to Iran

By David Ignatius
Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A19

What would President Bush say to the Iranian people if he had a chance to communicate directly with them? I was able to put that question to Bush in a one-on-one interview in the Oval Office on Wednesday. His answer made clear that the administration wants a diplomatic solution to the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program -- one that is premised on an American recognition of Iran's role as an important nation in the Middle East.

"I would say to the Iranian people: We respect your history. We respect your culture. We admire the entrepreneurial skills of your people. I would say to the Iranian people that I recognize the importance of your sovereignty -- that you're a proud nation, and you want to have a positive future for your citizens," Bush said, answering quickly and without notes.

"In terms of the nuclear issue," he continued, "I understand that you believe it is in your interest -- your sovereign interest, and your sovereign right -- to have nuclear power. I understand that. But I would also say to the Iranian people, there are deep concerns about the intentions of some in your government who would use knowledge gained from a civilian nuclear power industry to develop a weapon that can then fulfill the stated objectives of some of the leadership [to attack Israel and threaten the United States]. And I would say to the Iranian people that I would want to work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power."

"I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict," Bush added.

He expressed hope that Iran would help stabilize Iraq, but he said the best channel for this dialogue would be through Iraq's new prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who has been in Tehran this week. And he called for a new program of cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Iran as a way of encouraging greater contact and trust.

Bush's comments were a clear public signal of the administration's strategy in the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. In recent days, the Washington rumor mill has been bubbling with talk that the administration is planning military options for dealing with the crisis, perhaps in the near term. But Bush's remarks went in a different direction. His stress was on reassuring Iran that the United States recognizes its ambitions to be an advanced nation, with a robust civilian nuclear power program and a role in shaping the Middle East commensurate with its size and power. The red lines for America involve nuclear weapons, military threats to Israel or the United States, and Iran's links to terrorist groups.

Bush's comments tracked the offer the United States and its allies have made to Iran if it agrees to suspend its enrichment of uranium. He proposed that the West supply enriched uranium to Iran and other countries, and collect the nuclear waste. He argued that this global program "would be a solution that would answer a deep desire from the Iranian people to have a nuclear power industry."

On Iraq, Bush said Maliki's visit to Tehran was "aimed at convincing the Iranians that a stable Iraq is in their interest. They have said so many times, and I think Prime Minister Maliki is now attempting to find out what that means, and how the Iraqi government can work with the Iranians to create a sense of stability."

Bush said he had read commentary criticizing Maliki's trip. "I disagree. Prime Minister Maliki should go to Iran. It is in Iraq's national interest that relations with Iran be such that there are secure borders and no cross-border issues, including the exportation of equipment that can harm Iraqi citizens as well as coalition troops, and the exportation of extremism that can prevent this young [Iraqi] democracy from flourishing."

Our discussion followed the 12-day visit to the United States by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. I asked Bush why he had approved this visit by a high-level Iranian and what he thought it had accomplished.

"One of the dilemmas facing [American] policymakers is to understand the nature, the complex nature of the Iranian regime," he said. "And I thought it would be beneficial for our country to receive the former leader, Khatami, to hear what he had to say. And as importantly for him, to hear what Americans had to say."

He wanted Khatami to understand that on the nuclear issue and Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, "It's not just George W. Bush speaking."

The Khatami visit "said that the United States is willing to listen to voices," Bush explained. "And I hope that sends a message to the Iranian people that we're an open society, and that we respect the people of Iran." Clearly, the White House wants to reach out to segments of Iranian opinion beyond the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I asked Bush what next steps he would favor in opening dialogue with Iran. "I would like to see more cultural exchanges," he said. "I would like to see university exchanges. I would like to see more people-to-people exchanges."

"I know that the more we can show the Iranian people the true intention of the American government," Bush concluded, "the more likely it is that we will be able to reach a diplomatic solution to a difficult problem."

I came away with a sense that Bush is serious about finding a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis, and that he is looking hard for ways to make connections between America and Iran.

For an ongoing discussion of international issues, David Ignatius is co-hosting, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, a new Web feature called PostGlobal at www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091401415.html

A very matured advice.

**Ray** · 15 Sep 06,, 17:31

But here comes the reality

The US is moving Iran to the terrorism front row

By Nicole Stracke
Commentary by
Friday, September 15, 2006

As a backdrop to the 5th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and congressional elections in November, US President George W. Bush recently outlined some new ideas for the global "war on terror" and what his administration perceives to be the way forward.

A fact that is unlikely to surprise many is that the Bush administration has officially opened a new Iranian file according to which Iran is not just a "rogue" state adamantly pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. It is now also a state which is clearly identified as "funding and arming terrorist groups like Hizbullah." Therefore, Iran is held responsible for past bombing attacks - the attack on the US Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans in 1983, and on the Al-Khobar complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in which 19 US servicemen were killed, allegedly carried out by the Saudi Hizbullah with the support of Iranian officials.

Comparing the US reports on counter-terrorism since 2003, the latest report outlining the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" released this month describes Iran as the "most active state sponsor of international terrorism." It states that Tehran plans terrorist operations and supports groups such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad "through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security." The report also claims that Iran is "unwilling to account for and bring to justice senior Al-Qaeda members it detained in 2003." Since the US apparently "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists," Iran is now moving to the frontline of the American war on terrorism. The release of the report coincided with Bush's speech at the US Military Officers Association and echoed the themes outlined in the report. If one reads between the lines, the Bush administration is attempting to link Al-Qaeda to the Iranian regime. It is thus carefully preparing the world for the latest American conclusion that, like Al-Qaeda, Iran is indulging in terror and aiming to acquire weapons of mass destruction to expand the scope of its activities. Unlike Al-Qaeda, the Iranian regime has "not yet attacked the American homeland," but the emphasis and clear implication is that this could be possible in the future. Linking the Iranian nuclear issue with Iranian "sponsorship" of terrorism seems to be the latest US strategy in the global war on terrorism. Thus, the war on terror this time is not just directed against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but also against Iran and "Shiite extremists."

Bush's statements and the release of report came ahead of Security Council meetings to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. The possibility of sanctions being imposed would be a logical step after Iran recently rejected UN Resolution 1696 calling for the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities by August 31.

With the world now waiting for a decision on the Iranian nuclear issue, the Security Council finds itself in a difficult position: While Russia and China are not keen on imposing sanctions, France and the European Union continue to advocate further dialogue within the context of a diplomatic engagement strategy. If the Security Council fails to reach a decision, a situation similar to the March 2003 debacle could occur, where the US decided to unilaterally invade Iraq without a resolution authorizing the attack. The UN's reputation suffered significantly in the aftermath. If the Security Council fails to take strong action against Iran, the UN will once again appear to be an organization unwilling to enforce its own rules. Therefore, the Security Council is at a crossroads and has to decide if it will play an important role in international politics as a credible enforcement institution in the future.

The Bush administration's latest strategy to not only criticize Iran for defying international law by pursing weapons of mass destruction but also portraying it as a terrorist state by comparing it with Al-Qaeda is meant to influence the Security Council members to take a tougher stance on Iran. The new Bush strategy may nudge China and Russia to agree in the first instance to support sanctions against Iran under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a move that includes economic and diplomatic measures against Tehran. From there, Iran would once again be given time to rethink and negotiate its position on the nuclear program, before the Security Council finally gives the green light for the application of Article 42, which would allow the imposition of sanctions and military action. But whatever the reasoning, it is clear that the US is now resolutely heading for an escalation in the conflict with Iran.

Nicole Stracke is a researcher in the Security and Terrorism Program at the Gulf Research

Center in Dubai. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the center.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=75460

**Dreadnought** · 15 Sep 06,, 17:50

We really dont want conflict with them. However there are dangerous men among their regime that surely cannot be trusted. Their secret nuclear ambitions was what has led to this fork in the road. We cannot stand to have a nuclear armed nation threaten Israel or any other country over their religious reasons and call for their complete destruction and be whiped off the map. We are not against Islam itself we are against those who preach murder and destruction through Islamic teachings. It would be great to have their own government/governments take care of this but they do not and this is where we must act together in unison to prevent these such people from killing the innocent and their continued preaching of hate against other religions that do not conform to their own. War is not what we want. War will be used to stop them if all else fails and they choose to ignore these people who threaten civilian population with their Jihad.