White House Turned Down Cooperation Deal from Iran in 2003

Out of Control White House Craves Conflict

With a dangerous conflict with Iran looming, Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, has revealed to BBC's Newsnight that the White House rejected an offer from Iran in 2003 to help stabilize Iraq, end its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, and to increase transparency of their nuclear energy program. According to Wilkerson, once the offer arrived on the desk of Vice President Dick Cheney, the offer was stopped cold in its tracks, despite the State Departments determination that the letter containing the offer came from the highest authorities in Iran.

In Wilkerson's own words, "We thought it was a very propitious moment to (strike the deal)," Wilkerson said, "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."

Wilkerson asserts that what Iran was asking for in return is that economic sanctions on Iran be lifted, that the US dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group inside Iraq, and that the US government end its general hostility toward Iran.

This revelation takes on great significance in light of the ongoing crisis over Iran's nuclear energy program, and the allegations by Cheney and Bush that Iran is interfering with and destabilizing the Iraq situation. It also, once again, calls into question the claims of the Bush administration that they don not desire conflict.

If they truly desire to live up to their responsibility to try to resolve conflicts diplomatically; if they are interested in fighting a war on terrorism; and if they do not simply crave war and military domination of oil rich nations - why then would they reject an offer from a major state sponsor of terrorism to cease their support of recognized terrorist organizations? Why, if they are so concerned about Iran's nuclear program, would they have rejected an offer from Iran to provide greater transparency of said nuclear program?