PDA

View Full Version : U.S. secretly negotiating with Iran



Seraphim
08-01-2003, 02:28 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/946772.asp?vts=073120032230


July 31 — The Bush administration is engaged in a secret dialogue with Iran to try to persuade Iran to hand over top al-Qaida operatives, U.S. officials told NBC News.



THE THREE OPERATIVES are among the most wanted members of al-Qaida:
Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, an alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq.
Sa’ad Bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s third-oldest son who is believed to be planning new al-Qaida operations.
Suleiman Abu Ghaith, the al-Qaida spokesman famous for introducing bin Laden in a widely seen videotape after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Many U.S. officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key al-Qaida operatives over to the United States or their home countries for a price: in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or MEK.
The MEK has been attacking Iran’s Islamic government from Iraq and is now in Iraq under U.S. military control.

DEALING WITH ‘AXIS OF EVIL’
A former member of President Bush’s national security team says that despite the administration’s reluctance to publicly engage a country the president called part of the “axis of evil,” it’s worth handing Iran the MEK. According to Flynt Leverett, “It is potentially a big enough payoff that the United States should, on grounds of its national interest, be willing to strike a deal.”

In addition, some U.S. officials believe the MEK deserves to be handed over to Iran. The group is defined by the State Department as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. military troops and civilians and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
The MEK was financed, armed and trained by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein until the war. But the group does have support in the United States from some lawmakers who say its members are freedom fighters who should have U.S. backing.

OPPOSING THE DEAL
Hawkish Republicans say under no circumstances should the United States negotiate with Iran while it’s pursuing nuclear weapons. “We shouldn’t do anything that makes it look as if we’re recognizing, legitimizing, and favoring the regime in Iran,” says foreign policy expert Michael Ledine of the American Enterprise Institute.
Thursday night White House officials said there is no deal and no “formal” negotiations.
Despite what may be going on behind the scenes, the Bush administration’s public policy is Iran should hand over al-Qaida terrorists and expect nothing in return.

Seraphim
08-02-2003, 07:08 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030802/wl_mideast_afp/us_iran_qaeda_030802141752

Iran holding al-Qaeda number three, refuses to surrender him: report



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran is holding Saif al-Adel, the third-ranking member of al-Qaeda, but has refused to hand him over to the United States, according to a US newspaper.



Iran will only surrender al-Qaeda members in its custody in exchange for members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq, many of whom are in US-supervised camps in Iraq (news - web sites), the New York Times said.


A US official approached Tehran through a third party about taking custody of Adel and other al-Qaeda figures but "did not receive a positive response," the Times quoted a US official as saying.


Among those held in Iran, according to US and Middle Eastern officials, are al-Qaeda's Kuwaiti-born spokesman Sulaiman Abu Gaith; Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s Saudi-born son, Saad; and Abu Masab al-Zarwaqi of Jordan, a close aide to bin Laden.


"We are confident that Iran is holding these people," a US official said.


Adel is thought to have arranged the triple suicide bombings in Riyadh on May 12 that killed 35, and to have played a part in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200.


Tehran admitted in late July that it was holding prominent members of the al-Qaeda network but did not identify them.


It said Monday it was "completing the files" on members of the terror network in its custody before deciding on their fate, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said in a press conference.

budanski
08-02-2003, 07:15 PM
If Iran has learned anything since the fall of the Taliban and the Baathist Party of Iraq, they're in no position to make deals with the U.S. Some never learn even when the writings on the wall.

Random Walker
08-02-2003, 07:29 PM
Well as soon as the place they are being held is identified a cruise missile strike seems in order.

Regards
Random

usa320
08-02-2003, 09:46 PM
Agreed- not only would that kill 3 terrorist assholes, but it would send a sturn message to the iranians that we dont screw around.

ibstolidude
08-02-2003, 09:59 PM
And prove to the Iranian people that what the Ayatollah and other iranian religious leaders had
stated about the satanist west and America is true...

Thus further alienating the possibility of a revolution, and further solidifing those that straddle the fence that the west hates Islam.

garyfanclub
08-02-2003, 10:43 PM
I don't know guys, I'm far from a pacifist but I don't think we need to park a few Armored Divisions in Tehran to get them to turn over some Terrorist bastards.

Maybe a Spec Ops style operation would be more appropriate, especially after the current situation in Iraq. I'm sure Army SF/ 75th Rangers/ Delta could handle getting these guys if we really wanted them

Zach R.
08-02-2003, 11:16 PM
It worked in Mogadishu, I think it would work in Iran. Park a few Aircraft carriers off the coast, along with a few destroyers, battleships, cruisers.

duck
08-02-2003, 11:21 PM
Hmmm, old warmonger and Iran-Contra stooge Michael Ledeen at work again, ready to attack another enemy of Israel.

usa320
08-02-2003, 11:34 PM
I think the best way to go here is to to throw a few Carrier Battle groups off the coast of Iran, and continue to negotiate and encourage revolution amongs the intelects and students.

Unlike Iraq and North Korea i think Iran's regime actually realizes how limited its time is.

usa320
08-02-2003, 11:38 PM
"U.S. secretly negotiating with Iran "

Guess its not so secret anymore]

rofl rofl rofl

DarkAngel
08-03-2003, 01:33 AM
Wait...am i missing somethin here?
Iran is "holding 3 terrorists"...u know, frankly i doubt they are bein treated w the affection that Random Walker depicts in Rumsfeld's "Death Camps." Conditions in Iranian prisons are NOT terribly comfortable. Besides, Iran, despite supportin Hezbollah and some other groups, sees Al-Qaeda as a threat. Al-Qaeda is mainly Sunni. Iran is Shia. The Mujahid Al-Ansar gp in Iraq tt got squashed had links to Al-Q...and it wasnt popular with BOTH Saddam AND the Iranians.

Yes, we were the direct target of the most devastating Al-qaeda attack to date. But since when did that give us the right to bomb other countries cos they were holding onto people we would LIKE extradited to us? Yes, we would like em to stand trial here, where we ALL would know the verdict beforehand, but the trial would drag and turn into a big media event...and in the end, yes, they WILL see justice, albeit at the cost of lots of tax payer money and after loads of needless dramatics.

Sendin a cruise missile or an SOF team aint the answer. We'll just further alienate ourselves, and prove to everyone that we cant understand reason, only violence. Hell, my mates down in the sand box are alrady complainin that one dumb act by a grunt is remembered far more than ten kind deeds... We have what it takes to win the peace...lets not go out of our way to start more wars.

usa320
08-03-2003, 02:19 PM
maybe the iranians will do the job for us?

warchild1/27scout
08-03-2003, 03:00 PM
we need to tell them to hand the terrorists over or the ****s going to hit the fan. the last people who would'nt turn over known terrorists was the taliban. tell them they're on notice and we'll get back to them.oh, no that was the french because the death penalty. p-)

Kriz
08-03-2003, 05:12 PM
Warchild sure attack Iran and get your terrorists but wouldn't you first finish off Afghanistan and all the terrorists there, it seems that Osama and the gang are still there. So let's finish the business there first and then move on to the next stage.
Besides there is also lots of work to be done in Iraq.

Just my opinion, best regards

Random Walker
08-03-2003, 06:20 PM
Wait...am i missing somethin here?
Yes, you seem to be missing that fact that common enemies make strange bedfellows.

If you recall the Jihad boys have crossed the Syrian and Iranian borders and went on to support a certain secular psycho known as Saddam H. quite recently. You seem to be forgetting that for example on 9/11 it was not only Arabs that danced on the streets but Christian Serbs – and who did they fought before, yes that is right, you know the answer. You seem to forget that when a need was there UK and US joined Uncle Joe against certain Adolph with a funny mustache.

Sorry I do not mean to be patronizing but history has shown us alliances stranger then b/n two psychos of different Islamic denomination.

As for someone alienating the Iranians, if a police HQ filled with the scum that routinely crush peaceful demonstrations was to collapse…

Regards
Random

usa320
08-03-2003, 10:36 PM
mysteriously collapse of course, without noticable cause.... ;)