Iran's letter to George W. Bush

[javaprogrammer]

Full text of the letter in English is available at Iranian President's web site:
http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-e.htm#b3

The original PDF image is here for those interested:
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/ahmadinejad0509.pdf

----------------------------------------------------
from Wikinews:
(added May 10, 2006)

On May 8, 2006, Ahmadinejad sent a direct secret letter to United States President George Bush to propose "new ways" to end Iran's nuclear dispute. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley both had reviewed the letter and considered it to be a broad, historical look at the U.S.-Iranian relationship. That was the first direct contact between both goverments since April 9, 1980.

The letter has achieved more positive press coverage than President Ahmadinejad has ever gotten. With Western powers unable to reach agreement about a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran's nuclear program, online commentators says Ahmadinejad's 18-page letter (originally in Persian) promotes the idea that Iran is open to compromise at a time when the rest of the world is divided.

The letter, the first written communication between the leaders of the two countries in 27 years, criticizes Bush for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, detainee abuse in U.S.-run facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and for his support of Israel.

The letter received various reactions. "Regardless of the content of Ahmadinejad's letter ... such a communication could lead the two sides to direct talks," the centrist Shargh newspaper said somewhat optimistically. "Whatever its content, the letter crosses the red line of non-negotiation. If Ahmadinejad's letter gets a positive response, a new chapter could open and then we could say it is possible to talk and get results in the shadow of war," it said.

Some analysts, compared the letter with the historical letter by Ayatollah Khomeini to Gorbachev, where he predicted the collapse of communist regime.

[corrupt123]

tl;dr

anyone want to sum it up?

[Crotchety Old Man]

Know that's civilized. Too bad Bush doesn't know how to write.

[ElChico]

It kinda lists everything the USA has done wrong in the last 6 years. All in 18 single spaced pages :lol:

[Ojam]

It kinda lists everything the USA has done wrong in the last 6 years. All in 18 single spaced pages :lol:

they can fit that on 18 single spaced pages?! Must be size 8 font... ZING! :lol: ;)

[xKagex]

"Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make "War on Terror" his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community in which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city, or convoy set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed back to their families."

[FastFokker]

This leader of Iran doesn't sound too bad... maybe Harper took a queue from him and relabelled it "Stand Up For Canada." :cheesygri

[asim99]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-727571,36-769886,0.html

[xKagex]

ah thanks, typing that out was tiring ;)

[xKagex]

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed."

[Mr._Hankey]

3rd paragraph from the end - Liberalism has failed - I think he's right about that one.

[xKagex]

Considering that the US constitution was founded upon Liberalism, and functioned quite well until about 40 years ago when the country turned towards a military industrial complex (despite Eisenhower's warning), I wouldn't necessarily agree with that argument.

The last part of the letter, when he basically suggests we all go back to Mosaic Law and fundamentals of monotheistic religions, has some merits, but in reality would cause more problems than it would solve.

The rest of the letter is great, and speaks to everything I believe but can't properly articulate. It boils down to either a society based on Fear or a society based on Love.

[FastFokker]

It boils down to either a society based on Fear or a society based on Love.Oh jeez, easy choice for the Bush regime then! :lol:

"I'll take Fear for $3 billion, Alex!"

[poedua]

Considering that the US constitution was founded upon Liberalism, and functioned quite well until about 40 years ago when the country turned towards a military industrial complex (despite Eisenhower's warning), I wouldn't necessarily agree with that argument.

The last part of the letter, when he basically suggests we all go back to Mosaic Law and fundamentals of monotheistic religions, has some merits, but in reality would cause more problems than it would solve.

The rest of the letter is great, and speaks to everything I believe but can't properly articulate. It boils down to either a society based on Fear or a society based on Love.

How would describe the current status of Iranian society - in your view?

.......a society " based on Fear or a society based on Love ".........or something else altogether ?

[charger]

I was expecting something quite different.

That was a pretty thought out letter.

Kinda scary near the end, but quite interesting.

[poedua]

This leader of Iran doesn't sound too bad... maybe Harper took a queue from him and relabelled it "Stand Up For Canada." :cheesygri

I think David Lloyd George had a similar view ......" This leader doesn't sound too bad " of another foreign leader...and we all know how that turned out. :)

[xKagex]

How would describe the current status of Iranian society - in your view?

.......a society " based on Fear or a society based on Love ".........or something else altogether ?

I think the current conditions are indicative of a country that is coming out of the Dark Ages and trying to enter into a period of Enlightenment. I see it as a society trying hard to make the right choices, while still being hampered with the views that come with fundamental views of a patriarchal religion (It wasn't long ago that this was us, women only received the right to vote a few short years ago). I see it as a country that is trying to make the best choices for the people in terms of energy needs, a country trying to make technical and scientific progress, which is then propagandized (probably not a word) into a crime by other countries who would rather keep raping them of their resources. I see it as a society of people who feel threatened on all sides by huge militaristic presence, a country surrounded by occupying forces, who see nothing but the suffering of fellow muslims and Palestinians at the hands of Israel and the West. A country completely backed into a corner, still doing its best to create a good society for its people.

That is what I see.

[FastFokker]

Ahmadinejad seems like a pretty smart man, it's nice to have this document available for all of the world prior to a US/Israeli led attack/"preemptive strike".

Good on him! And I wish the best of luck to all Iranians throughout the world.. a guy in my apartment building is itching to get home (Iran) ASAP as he might not get another chance for quite some time.

That's truly sad.

[poedua]

I think the current conditions are indicative of a country that is coming out of the Dark Ages and trying to enter into a period of Enlightenment. I see it as a society trying hard to make the right choices, while still being hampered with the views that come with fundamental views of a patriarchal religion (It wasn't long ago that this was us, women only received the right to vote a few short years ago). I see it as a country that is trying to make the best choices for the people in terms of energy needs, a country trying to make technical and scientific progress, which is then propagandized (probably not a word) into a crime by other countries who would rather keep raping them of their resources. I see it as a society of people who feel threatened on all sides by huge militaristic presence, a country surrounded by occupying forces, who see nothing but the suffering of fellow muslims and Palestinians at the hands of Israel and the West. A country completely backed into a corner, still doing its best to create a good society for its people.

That is what I see.

I see.

Interesting, because in your earlier post , you seemed to " boil " down a descripiton of a society to be one of only 2 choices ......." It boils down to either a society based on Fear or a society based on Love. ".

When you say Iran " feel threatened on all sides " & " see nothing but the suffering of fellow muslims and Palestinians "...is it safe to say that you view Iran as a society " based on Fear " ?

You said...." which is then propagandized (probably not a word) into a crime by other countries who would rather keep raping them of their resources. "- which other countries ( other thena the US are you referring to ? countries of the UN ? So , in a nut-shell, you sympathize with Iran...is it safe to say are you "Pro - Iran" ? Ditto for it's President ?

Curious ....the Iranain statement to " wipe Israel off the map "...do you endorse or condemn that sort of foreign policy statement ?

[poedua]

Ahmadinejad seems like a pretty smart man, it's nice to have this document available for all of the world prior to a US/Israeli led attack/"preemptive strike".

Good on him! And I wish the best of luck to all Iranians throughout the world.. a guy in my apartment building is itching to get home (Iran) ASAP as he might not get another chance for quite some time.

That's truly sad.

"Ahmadinejad seems like a pretty smart man " - so was Hitler...he fooled a lot of people too....so did Stalin. Remember, being smart and evil are aren't mutually exclusive. :)

I think it's a bit naive and pre-mature to draw firm conclusions about Ahmadinejad and his true motives......if history has taught us anything , treaties, proclamation, promiises, agreements ( i.e US, Germany, Russia and UK in WW 2 ) - a letter included - it's that these communications should be taken with a grain of salt.

Progaganda and deception takes many forms...look at GWB. :)

[Crotchety Old Man]

Remember, being smart and evil are aren't mutually exclusive.
That's true, but George Bush is breaking new ground in the stupid and evil arena.

[FastFokker]

That's true, but George Bush is breaking new ground in the stupid and evil arena. :lol: Comedy is even more funny when it's based on reality... damn that was funny!

[poedua]

I was expecting something quite different.

That was a pretty thought out letter.

Kinda scary near the end, but quite interesting.

The real question is ...what is the motive...why make the letter public ?

[xKagex]

I see.

Interesting, because in your earlier post , you seemed to " boil " down a descripiton of a society to be one of only 2 choices ......." It boils down to either a society based on Fear or a society based on Love. ".

When you say Iran " feel threatened on all sides " & " see nothing but the suffering of fellow muslims and Palestinians "...is it safe to say that you view Iran as a society " based on Fear " ?

You said...." which is then propagandized (probably not a word) into a crime by other countries who would rather keep raping them of their resources. "- which other countries ( other thena the US are you referring to ? countries of the UN ? So , in a nut-shell, you sympathize with Iran...is it safe to say are you "Pro - Iran" ? Ditto for it's President ?

Curious ....the Iranain statement to " wipe Israel off the map "...do you endorse or condemn that sort of foreign policy statement ?


The utopian idea of a society completely based on the ideal of Love is probably impossible. However, the Iranian society is probably full of Fear, and yet they continue to work towards progress. I haven't heard any talk from them about pre-emptive strikes. There's a big difference between a country that has used a 9/11 attack to stir up nothing but fear in its citizens, to the point of justifying at least 2 and perhaps 3 wars, and a country that is constantly threatened with attacks and yet continues to work at progress for its citizens. I hope you can see the difference.

I do sympathize with Iran, as I do with Afghanistan, Iraq, and all of the so-called "rogue" nations. I will continue to sympathize with them even if they are forced to defend themselves. You can't keep poking hornets' nests and not expect to get stung.

Do I think Israel should be wiped off the map (even if this statement is once again taken out of context)? I think that the powers that be need to have a long hard look at the borders that were drawn up 60 years ago and the resulting bloodshed.

I personally believe that all borders should be wiped off the map. If we can even say that the world belongs to us, it should at least belong to all of us equally.

[poedua]

The utopian idea of a society completely based on the ideal of Love is probably impossible. However, the Iranian society is probably full of Fear, and yet they continue to work towards progress. I haven't heard any talk from them about pre-emptive strikes. There's a big difference between a country that has used a 9/11 attack to stir up nothing but fear in its citizens, to the point of justifying at least 2 and perhaps 3 wars, and a country that is constantly threatened with attacks and yet continues to work at progress for its citizens. I hope you can see the difference.

I do sympathize with Iran, as I do with Afghanistan, Iraq, and all of the so-called "rogue" nations. I will continue to sympathize with them even if they are forced to defend themselves. You can't keep poking hornets' nests and not expect to get stung.

Do I think Israel should be wiped off the map (even if this statement is once again taken out of context)? I think that the powers that be need to have a long hard look at the borders that were drawn up 60 years ago and the resulting bloodshed.

I personally believe that all borders should be wiped off the map. If we can even say that the world belongs to us, it should at least belong to all of us equally.

Good reply. Fair enough.

You touched on " pre- emptive " strikes.

Would you agree that Iran - notwithstanidng the fact it feels threatened - has no defensible rationale for a " pre- emptive " strike on Israel ?

Or for that matter, has no defensible rationale for a " pre- emptive " strike on any targets in Iraq ?

[Rehan]

Would you agree that Iran - notwithstanidng the fact it feels threatened - has no defensible rationale for a " pre- emptive " strike on Israel ? That depends on where you draw the line for "defensible rationale", doesn't it? Some would consider the US's actions against Iraq defensible, while others would not. I don't understand why you would say "notwithstanidng the fact it feels threatened"...that's about the only way to try to justify pre-emptive strikes (unless you know of others?).

http://rapidrecon.threatswatch.org/2006/05/will-israel-take-the-initiativ/ quotes:
"At Israel’s National Day reception in Washington last week, an Israeli official, speaking privately and not for attribution said he believed Israel would strike first in the next “month or two or three” ..."

So could this kind of threat (which is often reported in the media (http://www.google.ca/search?q=israel+strike+iran)) be Iran's "defensible rationale"?

[Nemodigital]

The real question is ...what is the motive...why make the letter public ?
One hand out reached with the olive branch and the other behind the back with the dagger.

[xKagex]

Good reply. Fair enough.

You touched on " pre- emptive " strikes.

Would you agree that Iran - notwithstanidng the fact it feels threatened - has no defensible rationale for a " pre- emptive " strike on Israel ?

Or for that matter, has no defensible rationale for a " pre- emptive " strike on any targets in Iraq ?

I believe any pre-emptive strike is wrong.

[poedua]

That depends on where you draw the line for "defensible rationale", doesn't it? Some would consider the US's actions against Iraq defensible, while others would not. I don't understand why you would say "notwithstanidng the fact it feels threatened"...that's about the only way to try to justify pre-emptive strikes (unless you know of others?).

http://rapidrecon.threatswatch.org/2006/05/will-israel-take-the-initiativ/ quotes:
"At Israel’s National Day reception in Washington last week, an Israeli official, speaking privately and not for attribution said he believed Israel would strike first in the next “month or two or three” ..."

So could this kind of threat (which is often reported in the media (http://www.google.ca/search?q=israel+strike+iran)) be Iran's "defensible rationale"?

Notwithstanding ? A pre-emptive strike like Hitler on Poland or Hussein on Kuwait or Japan on Pearl is an example that comes to mind - there was no imminent concrete threat or peceived imminent threat from either invasion target as far as I know. The attacks / invasion were done for strategic reasons.

"defensible rationale" - that was my point, I can't think of any concrete reason why Iran could justify a pre-emptive strike ( conventional or nuke ) against Israel. A strike to defend oneself if attacked or in retaliation to an attack I can see...but to engage in an illegal invasion or military strike against a country without provocation is the very issue the US is being condemed for regarding the invasion of Iraq.

If pre-emptive strikes by the US are indefensible...ditto for any pre-emptive strikes by Iran.

XKagex said........." any pre-emptive strike is wrong "....would you agree with this statement ?

[xKagex]

I just wanted to comment on Iran's stance to attack Israel, even if attacked by the USA. Isn't this a very smart way to create a virtual stale-mate? Israel can't use a sneak attack, made to look like a US strike, and the US can't strike either, at least not without risking Israel.

[Rehan]

"defensible rationale" - that was my point, I can't think of any concrete reason why Iran could justify a pre-emptive strike ( conventional or nuke ) against Israel. A strike to defend oneself if attacked or in retaliation to an attack I can see...but to engage in an illegal invasion or military strike against a country without provocation is the very issue the US is being condemed for regarding the invasion of Iraq.

If pre-emptive strikes by the US are indefensible...ditto for any pre-emptive strikes by Iran. So you agree that the US and Israel have no defensible rationale to attack Iran?

XKagex said........." any pre-emptive strike is wrong "....would you agree with this statement ?Yes.

[Crotchety Old Man]

So you agree that the US and Israel have no defensible rationale to attack Iran?

Yes.
Forget it - it's been tried - rationality doesn't work with poedua.

[hyperion]

Maybe the president of Iran isn't crazy.

[shampoo]

Pre-emptive strike- well Israel attacked Iraq first when they destroyed their labortaries and killed scientists, using american provided f-14s. Israel is the only country to have these plans, and the sole purpose of these planes is air to ground attack. Not for peace-keeping.

[asim99]

Forget it - it's been tried - rationality doesn't work with poedua.
:arrowu:

[poedua]

So you agree that the US and Israel have no defensible rationale to attack Iran?



Pre-emptive strikes by the US and Israel on Iran are indefensible...ditto for any pre-emptive strikes by Iran...logic applies to both.

[poedua]

I just wanted to comment on Iran's stance to attack Israel, even if attacked by the USA. Isn't this a very smart way to create a virtual stale-mate? Israel can't use a sneak attack, made to look like a US strike, and the US can't strike either, at least not without risking Israel.

Good point.

[Evil Techie]

tl;dr

anyone want to sum it up?

thats probably what Bush said as well

got his team of analysists reading it and telling him what to reply...

[d_jedi]

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
My reply:
Mr. President,
I think you should look from within and see the same problems in your country before you criticize others for doing the same thing (ie. don't be a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite). I refer you to the case of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian journalist who was imprisioned, tortured, and murdered - all for taking a few photographs - in your country. The trial of her supposed killer was a sham, and did not live up to international standards for transparancy.

So, I ask you, Mr. President, if you are so concerned about the injustice of people held without charge or trial in American prisons, why are you not concerned about injustices of the Iranian justice system? Why has nobody been brought to justice for the murder of Zahra Kazemi, and why have you not taken measures to see that, in fact, justice is served?

[FastFokker]

My reply:I always had a sneaking suspicion you were Dubya Bush. :cheesygriForget it - it's been tried - rationality doesn't work with poedua.See my sig! ;)

[d_jedi]

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?
You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Technical and scientific achievement should not be discouraged, provided it is intended to be used for peaceful purposes. Mr. President, your nuclear program does not meet this condition. Do you honestly expect the rest of the world to believe that your nuclear program is strictly for electricity generation, and not for the construction of nuclear weapons - which would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, of which your country is a signatory - when:

You have rejected compromises that would have allowed nuclear reactors to be built for electricty generation, but prevented the use of spent fuel for weapons development
You have called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"

[FastFokker]

Iran has been in compliance of the NPT for some 30 odd years.. what has it gotten them?

DITTO! SQUAT! NADDA! USA TO THE LEFT! USA TO THE RIGHT!

Times are changing and they might just as well dump the NPT agreements like the USA dumps all it's obligations, agreements and treaties.

They deserve protection.

Sorry to quote wiki, but deal with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#Leaving_the_Treaty
Leaving the Treaty

Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

NATO states argue that when a state decides to go to war, the treaty no longer applies; effectively the state leaves the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty. See United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing above.

[d_jedi]

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Just as the American nation has many questions and grievances including: the kidnapping of 52 Americans for more than a year (referred to as the "Iranian hostage crisis") - in which you personally may very well have played a part, and the development of nuclear weapons, contrary to the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

[Emancipated]

Translation:

Hey, Butt boy, how's it going? your momma is fat.

p.s you smell


:lol:

[d_jedi]

Iran has been in compliance of the NPT for some 30 odd years.. what has it gotten them?

DITTO! SQUAT! NADDA! USA TO THE LEFT! USA TO THE RIGHT!

Times are changing and they might just as well dump the NPT agreements like the USA dumps all it's obligations, agreements and treaties.

They deserve protection.

Sorry to quote wiki, but deal with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#Leaving_the_Treaty
Iran has not given the justification required, nor have they withdrawn from the NNPT. Therefore, any nuclear weapons development is in violation of the treaty, of which they are a signatory.

In fact, Iran has tried to portray their nuclear programs as being in compliance with the NNPT, which suggests they have no intention of withdrawing. Either that, or they're lying through their teeth.

[FastFokker]

Therefore, any nuclear weapons development is in violation of the treaty, of which they are a signatory.They don't have nuclear weapons development yet.

They better hurry up and give their notice to leave the treaty though and get pushing with developing the defense mechanism.In fact, Iran has tried to portray their nuclear programs as being in compliance with the NNPT, which suggests they have no intention of withdrawing. Either that, or they're lying through their teeth.Well I don't know if they have intention to withdrawl from the treaty or not, I'm just saying it's a wise idea (IMO).

They can lie all they want, but the inspectors and officials all say the same thing... Iran is in compliance.

[Rehan]

Here's another letter from Iran that got a lot less airtime in the media...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192578,00.html
A top Iranian official, in an open letter given to TIME, offers what could be a starting point for negotiations

...

In the two-page memorandum, intended for publication in the West, Hassan Rohani,representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator, defends Iran's nuclear posture, decries American bullying, and puts forward a plan to remove the nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council and return it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, a long-standing Iranian goal.

The letter also offers some specific Iranian starting points for negotiation. Rohani said Iran would "consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections," and that it would also "address the question of preventing 'break-out'" — or abandonement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Independent nuclear experts consulted by TIME said these proposals were "hopeful" signs.

However, on the key U.S. demand that Iran forgo uranium enrichment on its own soil, because of international fears the process would permit Tehran to develop weapons-grade fissile material, Rohani said Iran would agree only "to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment." And while Rohani promised that "Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium" on Iranian territory, that would not meet the concerns of the U.S. and most of its European allies.

Rohani also pledged that "Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment." Finally, Rohani promised that "Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place."

...

But his views carry weight, because Rohani, who served for 16 years as the top official at the SNSC, has been close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini. "In the context of Iran's domestic politics, which is the driving force behind Iran's nuclear initiative, Rohani's proposals are significant because they have the imprimatur of the Supreme Leader, who would have approved them in advance," says William Samii, the longtime senior Iran analyst at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

...

[xKagex]

In my personal judgment, a negotiated solution can be found in the context of the following steps, if and when creatively intertwined and negotiated in good faith by concerned officials:

* Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.

* Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.

* Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.

* Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.

* Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment — during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.

* Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.

* Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It is not Iran's intention to disregard Security Council decisions. The way out is for the Security Council to mandate the IAEA to address this issue and establish a negotiating process for a fixed period to formulate a credible plan taking into account the suggestions I made in my personal capacity.

Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.

Hassan Rohani is representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

Sounds both reasonable and fair to me.

[Casanova]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

Sounds both reasonable and fair to me.
Then they should be invaded! no room for that.

[hagbard]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

Sounds both reasonable and fair to me.

The US has no intention to be reasonable and fair back.

[Sturmur]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32594

[hagbard]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32594

Maybe we should start quoting from The Onion next?

[Ojam]

Maybe we should start quoting from The Onion next?

Carefull, or he will threaten to punch you smack in your nose...... :lol:

[xKagex]

"Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

that constitutes a declaration of war??

*edit* I think Bush declaring his war in the middle east a "crusade" is just a tad worse.

[d_jedi]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

Sounds both reasonable and fair to me.
Sounds like Iran is stalling.. have they actually moved any further towards addressing the US and EU's concerns about their nuclear program?

I see a lot of "would consider", "would agree to negotiate", which really means a whole lot of nothing, substantively.

[d_jedi]

Maybe we should start quoting from The Onion next?
That would be good. The onion is funnier.

[d_jedi]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32594
That's so dumb it's not even worthy of comment.

[Boss_Scorpius]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32594

"God bless America" said by bush got them into Iraq war so it has historical significance....he is declaring war, possibily to rest of the world, he didn't say god bless everyone..... :cheesygri

[Sturmur]

Maybe we should start quoting from The Onion next?

Great retort.