Is the Bush Administration Lying About Iran?

Did the Bush Administration miss a major opportunity in the spring of 2003 to engage Iran and stabilize the Middle East? Two high-ranking former Administration officials contend it did.

In May 2003, Iran faxed a letter to the State Department, via the Swiss ambassador to Iran, proposing a sweeping realignment in US-Iranian relations. Iran offered "full transparency" on its nuclear enrichment program, to take "decisive action against any terrorists (above all Al Qaeda) on Iranian territory," to help stabilize Iraq and establish democratic institutions there, to disarm Hezbollah, to stop "material support to Palestinian opposition groups," and accept a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In exchange, the Iranian government asked the US government to foreswear regime change, abolish sanctions, crack down on the terrorist group MEK and allow Iran to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

"What the Iranians offered in 2003 was nothing short of a Nixon-in-China breakthrough in US-Iranian relations," said Flynt Leverett, the Bush Administration's former top official on Middle East policy at the National Security Council, at a conference on Iran sponsored by the New America Foundation today. "The Bush Administration, for its own reasons, rejected it."

According to Leverett, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said he "couldn't sell it at the White House." Added Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's top deputy: "I doubt Powell thought he had the power or political capitol" to take on Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, who opposed negotiations with Iran.

Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice could have pushed President Bush to begin talks with Iran. But Rice did nothing--and now claims she never saw the memo. "I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week.

Leverett says Rice is lying. She's acknowledged the existence of the Iranian offer in previous interviews and discussed it with him personally. "She owes Congress an apology for saying she has never seen that document," he says.

Both Leverett and Wilkerson stressed that it is not to late to begin negotiating with Iran, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission and countless other foreign policy experts have urged. "If the Administration comes to its senses, it's still possible to put US-Iranian relations on a more positive trajectory," says Leverett.

That means favoring diplomacy over sanctions, unproven accusations and threats of military action. It's up to Congress to keep the Administration honest. The House Foreign Affairs Committee should invite Rice back and ask her why she can't keep her facts straight.

Comments (69)

1. Geez, Mr Berman....I know they're in charge of the State Department, but do you think ALL of the "troubles with Iran" are coming from Bush & Co.?

   JOHN EDWARDS spoke in Israel about "keeping ALL options (emphasized) on the table for Iran". Obama as well, Hillary as much.

   Of COURSE, Rice and her buds blew it with Iran, just like they blew it with Iraq. And I think they know if they make a hostile move to Iran, they'll lose even a lot of the Senate Republicans (S'why I don't buy the CONTINUAL claims by the likes of Scott Ritter and Sy Hersh that "invading Iran is inevitable"....not since November 7th 2006, it isn't).

   But Bush and Rice have a LOT of friends among the TOP THREE Democrats running for 2008....on "standing tough" on Iran.

   Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 3:06pm

2. to clarify the above....

   "No" to war and even air strikes....but "yes" to sanctions and anything short of war, from Dems and Repubs alike.

   Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 3:07pm

3. JOHN EDWARDS spoke in Israel about "keeping ALL options (emphasized) on the table for Iran". Obama as well, Hillary as much. Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

   Were any of these politicians approached by Iran with an offer? Are these candidates capable of engaging Iran in negotiations? Did Mr. Berman suggest the Democratic Party's leadership is cordial with Iran?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 3:19pm

4. Not that diplomacy had any life left in the USA, but this is ridiculous. Does Yankee Doodle do anything but make threats (which it hopes materialize into war after "exhausting" all efforts to avoid it) when not being enfiladed by threats from the restless evildoers? Alongside the defunct art of diplomacy lie the decaying dreams of a better future and more civil society, supplanted by an endless array of calls for war, outlawry, nightmares, smoking guns, shaitans, secret cells, enemies, aliens, ect. No better futures being sold here, just warnings about imminent destruction from all corners of the earth, job theft, homophobia, radical Islam, dying planet, ect. Poor USA - the constantly aggrieved innocent in a violent world. All Yankee Doodle ever wanted was to be friends with everyone and make them as rich and happy as he is in a world at peace. Perhaps no one in the history of the world has been so misunderstood...

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/14/2007 @ 3:30pm

5. So Iran saw us kick ass next door in Iraq and rushed forward to make a deal. Which would have been a huge victory in the "war on terror". But BushCo ignored them.

   It's just too weird to comprehend. Are they really that stupid?

   Posted by MyParadigm at 02/14/2007 @ 3:38pm

6. If this story is factual, then yes they are that stupid.

   "Yankee Doodle". LOL.

   Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 3:44pm

7. The self-appointed King of the World and global cop on the beat, with a penchant for LA-style brutality, just doesn't get anything out of discussion. No counter to the bad-cop role in handling adversaries - just triggerhappy bullies with nuclear bombs. Even better, these guys consider this "leadership" and the only way to take the world into a better mañana. Well, seeing as how the huddled masses devour the glitz and glamour of Hollywood and other material goodies north of the border, tickling Americans with their cute attempts at mimicry, what can be expected when the American Ghostbusters attempt to treat the rest of the world like it was the Wild West peppered with haunted houses? We're talking decay in the deepest sense here, as the morality, culture, religion and politics of the nation erode and crumble into utter praise to the culture of fear and the power of violence. There is obviously no need for wisdom when you have a gift for warfare granted by the gods above...

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/14/2007 @ 3:55pm

8. it has been reported that the information about Iran is from 2004.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 3:58pm

9. Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/14/2007 @ 3:19pm |

   MTSP....does Edwards saying in Israel "all, let me emphasis, ALL options are on the table" about Iran indicative of....

   "If the Administration comes to its senses, it's still possible to put US-Iranian relations on a more positive trajectory," says Leverett....That means favoring diplomacy over sanctions, unproven accusations and threats of military action."

   or similar "senselessness" by the Democrats? If not, what's the difference?

   Do you think Dr. Rich's Democratic successor in 2009...is going to be THAT different?

   Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:00pm

10. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 3:52pm

    LVLIB, isn't one of the key "characteristics" of the "Islamic extremism" in Iran that SOME of their religious/political leaders have outspokenly favored the use of nuclear weapons to resolve sticky diplomatic/military situations in that region?

    I mean along the lines of...

    "3-5 nuclear weapons against (a particular country) and a threat to (its ally) to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting (a military leader) achieve the victory that we should have."

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:04pm

11. LL,

    Your country invaded the neighbor and brother of Iran based claims that have been proven over and over again to be fabrications and base fearmongering. Why the hell would Iran not assume the absolute worst when dealing with the US? To assume nothing can be gained by talk and negotiation is on a level with the instincts of a lone wolf. Talk about rogue state. But I do love how people like LL, like the punditry he idolizes, speak with utter certainty when discussing the thinking of Iran and its government/spiritual leaders. With so little about Iran known due to the isolation it has enjoyed for so long even the CIA boasts little good intel, yet LL and gang can echo the thoughts of yet another place they've never been and know nothing about. Pray tell, LL, what the leaders of Yangon had for lunch today.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/14/2007 @ 4:05pm

12. If you believe a Democrat administration is going to be so dogmatic, bellicose, and adverse to diplomacy you are mistaken. Hell, Jr.'s daddy would not--did not--do what these fools running the show have done.

    When you're running for the Democrat ticket you have to kiss Jewish ass, right?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:09pm

13. Plus, I don't find a Democrat assuring Tel Aviv (and Tehran) that Israel is beneath the US umbrella is all that surprising. That, in itself, is a stab at diplomacy.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:17pm

14. "ALL options"

    Unfortunately Jr, Cheney and the rest of the ideologues refuse to consider all options, such as diplomacy.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:19pm

15. Liberty -

    You are going to have to be a bit more specific on page 2. I read it, and cannot see what you mean. This document lists aims for both sides, meant as a starting point for negotiations.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:22pm

16. When you're running for the Democrat ticket you have to kiss Jewish ass, right?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/14/2007 @ 4:09pm

    Uh, MTSP...before you drift into PLUNGER/Zionist Occupation Government Territory....

    "Israeli" and "Jewish"...separate subjects, huh?

    And no, I'm saying a Democratic Administration (atleast from the candidates we've seen) isn't going to be Ari Berman's "no sanctions and no military threats"...EITHER!

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:24pm

17. "In May 2003, Iran faxed a letter to the State Department, via the Swiss ambassador to Iran, proposing a sweeping realignment in US-Iranian relations. Iran offered "full transparency" on its nuclear enrichment program, to take "decisive action against any terrorists (above all Al Qaeda) on Iranian territory," to help stabilize Iraq and establish democratic institutions there, to disarm Hezbollah, to stop "material support to Palestinian opposition groups," and accept a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

    WOW!!!!!! That is some scoope ARI. Deserving of the Pulitzer.

    Why fax "a letter?"

    Why not hold a news conference and propose this "sweeping re-alignment?" If this is overture was truely meaningful?

    Ahmendenjad does not have a problem holding news conferences denoucing how the "West is going to be destroyed and Israel will perish in flames"

    I highly doubt that in 2003 they(the mullahs) would have had a problem trotting out whoever it was then to make this suppossedly genuine gesture.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:30pm

18. Yeah, yeah, thanks for staightening me out on the Jewish/Israeli thing. I had no idea.

    There's nothing wrong with using sticks; you must be willing to offer carrots when applicable, however.

    "Geez, Mr Berman....I know they're in charge of the State Department, but do you think ALL of the "troubles with Iran" are coming from Bush & Co.?"

    Once again, I ask the same questions: Were any of these politicians approached by Iran with an offer? Are these candidates capable of engaging Iran in negotiations? Did Mr. Berman suggest the Democratic Party's leadership is cordial with Iran?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:32pm

19. In exchange, the Iranian government asked the US government to foreswear regime change, abolish sanctions, crack down on the terrorist group MEK and allow Iran to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

    In bold, is the most probably likely reason, they shunned this proposal.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:37pm

20. And why should Iran be denied their right to develop peaceful nuclear technology?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:40pm

21. CPT,

    So are you ever going to fight for this war you love so much and the others taking shape, or are you still content with just sending the other losers you connive into finding the American Dream in Iraq? It takes only the fiercest of warriors to enter the brutal theatre of the blogoshpere. Soldier my ass. Just another loser turned wanabe, me-too, parade-straggler, jabber-jockey. L-O-S-E-R. How long until they start recruiting in the prisons? Seems to me you got a lot of the same riffraff already in the ranks with as little hope for success and as much inaptitude as displayed by their door being skipped over by Opportunity, so why not arm and weaponize the dregs of the Great Society? Seems the streets and idiot box have taught them all they need to know when it comes to politics and international relations. CPT, this is a great idea - are you hip to my groove?

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/14/2007 @ 4:43pm

22. And, no, they shunned the proposal because they're ideologues, extremists.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:44pm

23. Why not hold a news conference and propose this "sweeping re-alignment?" If this is overture was truely meaningful?

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 4:30pm

    Just a guess, but probably because countries don't announce in a press conference a desire to open negotiations when they do not know the outcome or response (especially when there is no existing diplomatic relationship between the countries).

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 4:45pm

24. CHIMI

    "Your country invaded the neighbor and brother of Iran"

    They fought their "brother" for eight years losing close to a million of their number. Iran sent thousands of teenagers to walk across and "clear" minefields, in order to get across and kill their brothers.

    Also....however much you would love to think they are brothers because of their religous affliation......Iran is Persian...Iraq is Arab.

    As a Tajik "commander" one of Dostums subordiantes told me once.

    "I have been an Afghan for 200 yrs; I have been a Muslim for 1500 yrs; I have been a Tajik for 3000 yrs!!"

    There is the ME mentality

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:48pm

25. Posted by HMAN23 02/14/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

    But it is ok to threaten that same country with destruction?

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:51pm

26. CHIMI

    Cue invectives...lol

    Cant you EVER come up with anything original?????

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:53pm

27. There's nothing wrong with using sticks; you must be willing to offer carrots when applicable, however.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/14/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Then Bush/Rice...or Edwards/Hillary/Obama/Secretary Whoever...it's merely a matter of DEGREES and nuances, not what Mr Berman thinks of "no sanctions, no military threats"...is it?

    Which means...as I said....not that much difference come 2009.

    Will the Dem White House be MORE open to diplomacy?...maybe. But NOBODY running in 2008 is sounding like Mr Berman wants from Rice.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:56pm

28. CPT....question (no answer likely)...

    In your view, does Bush have the Congressional authority to attack Iran?

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:56pm

29. Posted by HMAN23 02/14/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

    One other point...countries often do make public offers to open lines of communication thru annoucements. While they surely wouldnt offer any details they could have made a broad offer to open a channel.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 4:57pm

30. Is the Bush Administration Lying About Iran?

    does shit stink?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 5:00pm

31. MASK

    As a purely TECHINICAL matter, any POTUS can employ use forces up to 90 days and extend to 120 days US forces against any country. BY the LAW.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 5:01pm

32. CPT,

    When are you going to stand up for what you believe in? I've asked this over and over, yet you never respond. Seems to me you're a soldier by choice, a fanatic for war and devoted to the orders you're given (which you then plant here as if they were organic thoughts). So, seems to me you're nothing but a poser, though I'm sure they give out medals for that too...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/14/2007 @ 5:02pm

33. Especially when it is noted on page 2 that the contact would not reveal what the Supreme Islamic leader would actually agree to.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 3:52pm

    The Iranians wouldn't agree to Bush's demands before finding out what the demands were? They really are nefarious, aren't they?

    Are you setting up a branch of the Flat Earth Society in Las Vegas? It could be a lucrative tax writeoff.

    LVLIBERTY1 is an example of how the Republican Party got into the White House.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:04pm

34. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person

    Yeah your right, Iran is a sweet innocent and benign.....they only want to fly kites and pick flowers

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

35. There is only one explanation that makes sense for the consistantly deceitful behavior of the Bush administration. They began with a clearly defined strategy shared by leading neoconservatives and their Likud associates of regime change in Iraq and Iran - using military means to include the use of nuclear weapons - and nothing anyone says or does will deter them. Besides, President Bush receives his instructions directly from God so who are we mere mortals to stand in his way?

    Posted by cass at 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

36. There's a huge difference between pragmatists and ideologues.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:07pm

37. Yeah your right, Iran is a sweet innocent and benign.....they only want to fly kites and pick flowers

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

    Has Iran ever sponsored a coup in the US?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:08pm

38. There has never been a sincere effort on the part of the Islamic regime in Iran. It runs counter to their own ideology to begin. with.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 3:52pm

    Please elaborate. What is their ideology that prevents them from negotiating mutually beneficial agreements? It doesn't seem to stop them from doing exactly that with other countries. They have, in fact, been very active diplomatically the last five years. They have negotiated a wide range of mutual interests with Russia, China, India, Latin America, etc.

    To think outside the box a little: do you think there's a slight possibility that the ideology of the Bush administration is the problem? That's just a vague, tentative concept. If it's way off base and totally implausible just say so. You're the expert here.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:10pm

39. Yeah your right, Iran is a sweet innocent and benign.....they only want to fly kites and pick flowers

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

    Has Iran ever sponsored a coup in the US?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/14/2007 @ 5:08pm

    Standard right-wing, numbskull response: "No fair."

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:11pm

40. Iran hasn't (lacks the capability to do it); the US did it in Iran.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:15pm

41. This is just another spin attempt by leftists who cannot fathom that the Islamic extremists in Iran and elsewhere actually mean what they say. Their naivite or worse compels them to believe that deep down, these extremists desire the same peace and harmony as the rest of the world.

    That is worse than nuts, it endangers Americans and others.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 3:52pm

    Yeah. And we'll elect the right kind of American governments when we're good and scared, won't we?

    What's your definition of an Islamic extremist, anyway? Anyone who is a Muslim? We already know you think that's the most wrong religion on the face of the earth, not nearly as c'est plus tres bien as your bizarre interpretation of Christianity. That's why you think it's peachy keen to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the false pretense that Saddam Hussein was bankrolling al-Qaeda.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:20pm

42. But it is ok to threaten that same country with destruction?

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 4:51pm

    No. But this is a non sequitur.

    One other point...countries often do make public offers to open lines of communication thru announcements. While they surely wouldn't offer any details they could have made a broad offer to open a channel.

    Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 4:57pm

    Sure. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they try a back channel or intermediary. I think much of that call depends on the internal politics of the country. In Iran, you have many hard-liners who would equate any talk of extending an olive branch to the U.S. with weakness. As such, keep it quiet in case nothing happens or the offer to talk is rejected. Would you want Bush to let public a list of possible concessions to North Korea, Iran without knowing if those countries would even be willing to sit down and talk about the issues?

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:23pm

43. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/14/2007 @ 5:11pm

    Gee, Rio. I wonder why Condi could not come up with this perfectly reasoable explanation.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:25pm

44. RIO POLLO, please report for duty at your nearest recruiting station. There's an assignment waiting for you with plenty of sand where you can scratch and peck around to your absolute chicken-hearted contentment.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:31pm

45. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/14/2007 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person

    I am not a personnel manager, deployable unit assingments rotate for officers every three years, then at this time in my career you go and get specialized training for a particular assingment. Now since there is built-in overlap, a choice of one of these assingments is offered....i ask to go back to CENTCOM AOR...they balance that with space and alloted authorized slot. A Major must to a Major's job, a SGT must do a SGT's job and so on and so on. My branch(specific job) manager has shotgunned e-mails to all of us in these assingments, telling us to be "patient we will rotate back."

    Dont worry you will get your wish sooner than later.

    See, when you post in a calm and semi-rational manner, you get a serious response.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 5:33pm

46. CPT, LVLIBERTY1, RIO POLLO. What a triumvirate of the failure of American society. Is this the crown of creation?

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:34pm

47. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.

    Uh . . . Onward Christian soldiers, marching to real war.

    Crusader LVLIBERTY1, commander at large.

    Make the world right by drowning it in blood and misery.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:37pm

48. How long have you been an O-3?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:37pm

49. Actually, let's promote LVLIBERTY1 to General.

    CPT is promoted to Major.

    RIO POLLO, report to boot camp. Rank: Private. Graduation assignment: cruise high schools for Major CPT to drum up new cannon fodder for the Republican Party's private war.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/14/2007 @ 5:42pm

50. Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm |

    no...their ruling elites and a bunch of old farts are ABOMINABLE BARBARIC MURDEROUS HYPOCRITICAL MEDIEVALIST CROMWELLIAN CHAUVINISTIC BRUTAL SOCIOPATHIC RELIGIOUS FANATIC ABOMINATIONS who are menaces to the world and their neigbors.

    ISLAMOFASCISTS, a term that bothers me only in that neocon excusing concrete objective thinking chowderheads do ever babble it when trying to excuse broadening a war that need not have been fought. and should not have been fought.

    as a historian, i find the current specific civilizational mixture of religion and government to be especially ironically dissapointing, in that i have come to believe that the ancient pre-islamic civilization of old persia was one of the most amazingly progressive, for its time, ever. i think the greeks were a LOT more influenced by persian religious philosophy than modern civilization has realized. (i'm looking forward to the upcoming hackfest spectacular, "300", but the spartans were some of the most ruthless, despotic, slaveholding brigands of history...har har)...

    regardless, i think the youth of persia - oops, iran - are sick of their own evil government, their own evil old people, and their own evil...(stop ibble - calling other persons religions evil is not good even if it is...)

    but if we shove our big flaccid miltary industrial halburton enriching thingy in their thingy...

    those pissed off young towelheads will forget who they are currently pissed at and remember how we destroyed their fragile democracy in the 50's and installed a brutal monarchical dictator who made sure we got cheap gas...

    you know nothing...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 5:51pm

51. instead of using our (now somewhat tarnished) moral, economic, and, yes - military power WISELY to facilitate the conditions necessary for peace, progress and development, we, the sterling pure randian ubermensch who create our own reality brought upon an innocent PEOPLE...

    death, destruction, chaos, misery...more than they had before. that is morally wrong, and we did it. and we want to do it again?

    i'm not so sure the ultimate taint of this has completely pushed us over the line morally, to the dark side yet, but if we are FOOLISH enough to commit the same error...we cant even pretend to be "the good guys" anymore.

    you know, like dr. doom vs. the red skull?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 6:27pm

52. Beware of interpreting Bush and Co. as stupid, crazy or incompetent. They are playing a different game by different rules and should be viewed as very dangerous. Our efforts should be directed to understanding what they are up to so that we can predict and block their moves.

    We know that Bush's grand plan is to remake the Middle East through force and regime chgange. We know that from the first Iran was target number 1. We know that a large-scale operation to launch an military attack on Iran is underway. It was entirely predictable that right about now a campaign to justify a war would be getting underway. We can expect a war unless a major effort by Congress and others manages to expose and block the plans. That may not be possible giving the power the Administration has accumulated and the Pavlovian reaction of the media, Congress and the public that can be expected to any major attack on an American target. It is possible that an Iranian backdown on Uranium processing could lead Bush to stand down; but this was never about Iran's nuclear program. It is about American control of the oil reserves, and removing a rival for that control.

    What is truly sobering to consider is this: Bush doesn't have a large enough military to take on Iran on the ground, and he knows it. Iran has the ability to turn the American invasion of Iraq into a rout. Bush must have a plan for dealing with this if he is going to start a war with Iran. What is it? Whatever it is it will have to be something outside of the rules of the game as it is now being played.

    Posted by Chris Horton at 02/14/2007 @ 6:33pm

53. Posted by CHRIS HORTON 02/14/2007 @ 6:33pm

    cunning foolishness...eh?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 7:17pm

54. Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 5:01pm

    Ok, let's keep going...slowly and simply.

    Okay, so Bush CAN invade Iran for upto 120 days.

    Now...at the END of that 120 days, does Congress have the MORAL authority (not Constitutional right) to end the war and then risk the attack of people such as yourself that they are "not supporting the troops" or "wanting our enemies to win"?

    Here's the trick...

    Essentially if you say "No", you are stating that the Congressional power to declare war...is null and void. Because you have granted ALL war power to the President for starting ANY WAR HE WANTS...and then removing the political and moral authority of Congress to end a war like that.

    No matter how you slice it....you are giving the President SOLE POWER to declare war...and sole purview for the continual and UN-ending ability to fight it.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 8:57pm

55. Normally I love The Nation, and generally speaking, I hate the Right in this country. But I have to say, I have a problem with articles such as this. As is the case with another current Nation article (Is Obama's Race a Factor in Howard's Attack?), it appears that the writer would like us to draw the conclusion that the answer to their title question is "Yes", but at the same time they lack the evidence to flat-out assert that such is the case. This way of presenting an argument is something that I see emanating from right-wing institutions like Fox News and The Washington Times. When I come to The Nation for information and opinion, I'd like to see that they are above posing Fox questions to their readers. You tune in to that network and see Sean Hannity asking his audience things like "Has the Left gone to far?" or "Are the Democrats playing politics on this issue?" One lesson of life that I've learned in recent years is, if you want to be a moral and wise person, just act exactly the opposite of Sean Hannity. The Nation writers need to follow this lesson more than anyone.

    Posted by Dan Teague at 02/14/2007 @ 9:19pm

56. no...their ruling elites and a bunch of old farts are ABOMINABLE BARBARIC MURDEROUS HYPOCRITICAL MEDIEVALIST CROMWELLIAN CHAUVINISTIC BRUTAL SOCIOPATHIC RELIGIOUS FANATIC ABOMINATIONS who are menaces to the world and their neigbors

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person

    Hey historian...come back to 2007...nitwit.

    Because it is those PEOPLE who you aptly described that have the authority and power in IRAN. Not that wonderfully progressive society of ancient Persia...that died out SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS AGO!!!!!!

    Wholly crap you do NOT know what age you are in!!

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 9:25pm

57. Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person

    Here is the TRUTH.

    You are the most DIHONEST poster here. You take the title hands down. And you probably laugh about it....to yourself and think it is clever.

    Your never ending circular logic, loaded questions, consistent misrepresentation are without a doubt UN-precedented. EVEN here.

    You are not content to do that once, not twice, but every single time.

    You ALWAYS incorrectly attribute statements made by one poster or another and you do this ceaselessly.

    If one poster says A....you "brilliantly" counter with their words and reinterpert as if they said B. The poster says no i said A....but you continue as if they said B and form other conjectures based on B. All the while they are trying in a futile attempt to say that "NO i said A"

    Let me simplfy...for you edification.....you are a con man, a fake, a charloton, a liar and a fraud.

    But somehow, in your wierd mind you think you are making a point...well nope, you are not...the point is that you are intellectually dishonest. simple

    But what makes it worse...and yes it gets worse...is that you are CONSISTENTLY intellectually dishonest. EVEN when corrected several times.

    I am not talking about taking soemthing out of context...that happens with everyone here, however what makes you different is that you keep repeating the lie over and over again.

    So i chose not engage you; that often in your silly MASK games.

    Posted by CPT at 02/14/2007 @ 9:41pm

58. Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 9:25pm

    you are too swift for me, captain crunch...

    i typed in all caps all those nasty words to impress upon you the fact that i am no fan of the guys, nor do i trust them. i said the islamo fascists as a backhanded olive branch to you... i included the ANCIENT history lesson to impress upon you and anyone else reading this that i am not a racist...i respect other human beings even if i consider their actions evil and vile. i included the more recent historical reference to impress upon you the fact that things happened before you were born...i left out the fact that the brutal monarchical dictator we installed was so bad that those crazy once noble folk chose that horrible theocracy under which they suffer now.

    i included the flaccid phalus remark...to remind you of all peeps, that our (all volunteer) military etc has already blown its wad in iraq and...not a personal insult, in other words...

    now...you know a little more than nothing.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 10:30pm

59. I just want to state for the record that there's absolutely no evidence ofany high level North Korean government involvement in any kidnapping of japanese or south korean citizens, conterfeiting US currency, or drug trafficing, or sale of missle technology...We know all of the above are going on in North Korea, but we need to stress that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that the North Korean leadership is involved............................................

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/14/2007 @ 11:08pm

60. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/14/2007 @ 11:08pm

    another hellhole our big flacid haliburton supporting thingy aint going. with that, goodnight.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 11:12pm

61. could it all be about doing what israel wants. the true flag of israel should be the star of david with a swatiska imposed over the star. sure learned a lot from their nazis masters. how the nazis treated the jews is exactly how israel is now treating the palestinian people. when are they going to start the ovens up? the us has given almost 100 billion dollars cash to israel in 30 years. some of that money is funneled to our elected official to protect israel at any cost to america. steal my country and murder my people and i'm going to get even anyway i can. read history. some of the best books condeming israel are written by israels author ilan pappe.

    Posted by bgr1938 at 02/15/2007 @ 08:27am

62. could it all be about doing what israel wants. the true flag of israel should be the star of david with a swatiska imposed over the star. sure learned a lot from their nazis masters. how the nazis treated the jews is exactly how israel is now treating the palestinian people. when are they going to start the ovens up? the us has given almost 100 billion dollars cash to israel in 30 years. some of that money is funneled to our elected official to protect israel at any cost to america. steal my country and murder my people and i'm going to get even anyway i can. read history. some of the best books condeming israel are written by israels author ilan pappe.

    Posted by bgr1938 at 02/15/2007 @ 08:30am

63. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 5:51pm

    Came very late to this thread, so I'll bow out on most of it, but wanted to throw out a point and ask a question.

    First, the question: Ibbleblibble, what's your specialty? I'm an early modernist specializing in military (especially strategic) and diplomatic history. Most of my work has been in the Atlantic world, but I do branch out for global (strategic usually) issues. I'm glad to know there's another historian here, we can use all the rational analysis we can get.

    Second, the point: I particularly liked your point about the pre-Islamic civilizations of Persia and their influence. I wonder if our little right-wing chorus here (especially Lvliberty) realize just how much their own Christianity (or Judaism, or Islamism for that matter) was influenced by Zoroastrianism? Or how important studying the development of that same Persian/Greek cultural nexus and it's influence would be to understanding what's really going on in Iran (or Afghanistan, for that matter)? Americans especially are good at ignoring other people's histories and the results of those pasts for the present. It's one of the first things I try to teach students, to leave behind cultural chauvinism and look at the world in terms of how the different pasts of human experience weave together a complete view. Apparently, this is a lesson still far too uncommon.

    Posted by Stwriley at 02/15/2007 @ 09:16am

64. Posted by STWRILEY 02/15/2007 @ 09:16am

    har har - i'm kind of a commando historian myself, who has kind drifted out of the discipline into head shrinkery (the two not being mutually exclusive). I am kind of a universalist, and like you mostly and atlantic rimmer. i love ancient history, especially that of rome, in which i see MANY parallels with our own civilization (what is OUR lead in the pipes, i wonder...) and find it hilafious that people think such is irrelevant - i think its essential to understand our current world as it really is...

    yeah, i know exactly what you are saying about zoroastrianism...although eventually corrupted by the time of the romans, it is a wonderful example of how a monotheistic faith CAN be truly universal, not just desirous of universal conversion, and yes, most definately it was a profound influence upon not only judaism (and therefore by extension christianity and islam) but also on the greek philospophers, whos ideas (like urge and dimiurge, etc, etc) had already been elucidated in a mystical form in zoroastrianism.

    but the greeks won the war and then wrote the history, and the persians became the archetype for "oriental absolutism" in the minds of western centered historians like will durant (who i nonetheless respect). oops - gotta go...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/15/2007 @ 09:38am

65. you know of course you will be called an anti-semite (despite the fact that the palestinians are also semitic, as are the arabs but not the persians). the word "nazi", regardless of how it is used, charges the emotions...

    but all institutionalized oppression resembles the nazi's version of it, i suppose. they perfected it and epitomize it in so many ways. the archetype...

    i respect israel and wish them the best, but i cannot see how the welfare of israel is always the welfare of the united states, like lieberman, party of one seems to believe...oh shit, now i'm gonna be called an anti-semite too...

    but if party of one thinks what these morons in charge have done has helped israel...well, he IS kind of right. now millions of crazed self exploding muslim bigots and fanatics hate us as much or more than israel...

    but the internecine sunni/shia 21st century 30 years war brewing will not be so nice for anyone in the area...

    was that the goal, neofascists?

    BRILLIANT!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/15/2007 @ 09:55am

66. Posted by CPT 02/14/2007 @ 9:41pm |

    CPT, in all that rant against me....didn't you forget something???

    How about an answer to the question of whether you would support Bush invading Iran "for 120 days"...and then threaten or atleast harshly criticize the US Congress if they tried to stop or end such an invasion as "not supporting our troops" and "wanting the enemy to win"?

    Your anger with me is self-evident. You DO invest sole war-making power with Bush and WOULD rebuke a Congress that opposed him.

    Article 1, Sect. 8 of the US Constitution is meaningless. Congress does NOT have the power to declare war...President Bush does (Note, I say "Bush" specifically, because partisan that you are you would NEVER support a Democratic President having that power).

    Nor politically do you think Congress has the power STOP a war once it has begun under the order of President Bush ("120 days" or not).

    Now for MY assessment of YOU....you are an "executive authoritarian" who has a cult of personality form of hero worship for the current President. And public opinion, democratic (small "d") institutions, and even the US Constitution be damned.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 10:24am

67. C. Rice is totally incompetent to be a Sec of State. No real convictions, no vision. The Europeans don't take her seriously and the Middle East, who culturally rejects female authority, just puts on a polite face. She's simply a crony of a cowboy.

    Posted by hansegon at 02/15/2007 @ 1:55pm

68. "Is the Bush Administration Lying About Iran?"

    Yes.

    Everyone sing along....

    "Well it's one, two, three what are we fightin' for?

    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn

    Next stop is ol' Iran"

    Posted by COProgressive at 02/15/2007 @ 1:57pm

69. Curious statement...

    "and the Middle East, who culturally rejects female authority, just puts on a polite face."

    Posted by HANSEGON 02/15/2007 @ 1:55pm

    Doesn't that sort of BROADLY suggest that, in general, it's a BAD idea for a Secretary of State to be a female, so as to not "put off" Middle Eastern leadership and populations?!?!?!?

    And, of course, did you feel that way when it was Madeline Albright?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 2:04pm