Iran, U.S. in ‘Secret’ Nuke Talks

Email    Print    Share

Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo

Posted on Apr 15, 2008

bbc.co.uk

In on the secret talks: Thomas Pickering.

Diplomatic relations could be better between Iran and America, and judging by the tough-guy posturing of both nations’ presidents, neither side is likely to back down, especially when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.  But, as the UK’s Independent reports, secret “back channel” discussions going on between the U.S. and Iran for some five years present a slightly different story.

The Independent:

Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret “back channel” discussions for the past five years on Iran’s nuclear programme and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal.

One of the participants, former senior US diplomat Thomas Pickering, explained that a group of former American diplomats and experts had been meeting with Iranian academics and policy advisers “in a lot of different places, although not in the US or Iran”.

While the nuclear issue was “prominent”, Mr Pickering said, “we discussed what’s going on domestically in both countries and wide-ranging issues” affecting the US-Iran relationship. Although none of the group members was from the US or Iranian governments, he said that “each side kept their officials informed”. The Bush administration “did not discourage us,” he added.

Read more

TAGS: ahmadinejad america back channel bush independent iran meeting nuclear pickering secret tehran united nations united states

SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Yahoo

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Electoral Turmoil Continues in Zimbabwe

Next item: Delta and Northwest Join in Airline Mega-Merger

Jump to Comments

Advertisement

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments Show comments Comment on this article

Show: ----- Threaded Flat By date Only for article Help?
Threaded: Comments with their replies, indented
Flat: Comments and their replies, no indenting
By Date: Most recent comments at the top, regardless of who's replying to who
Only for Article: Comments only, hiding any replies

By hass, April 16 at 3:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Former officials and academics who engage in talks that are not supported by the current government do no constitute “back channels”—they’re just private individuals acting independently. The Independent characterizes these talks as “secret backchannels” because it sells more papers.

Reply to this | Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 15 at 7:24 pm #
(382 comments total)

I concur Thomas Billis with your post. However, the matter is more complex than it seems because Israel considers the current regime in Iran as its sworn enemy. Iran under the Shah was a close friend with Israel and they were partners in economic, military and espionage activities in the area. All that was lost after the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

One thing that possibly many don’t know or want to believe is that the American Congress and the White House are secretly Israeli-occupied territory. So if Israel maintains that Iran is a sworn enemy, then the American political-military establishment must concur with that, and herein lies the complexity of the situation.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Hass, April 16 at 3:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Israel and Iran

Actually, the Shah was not all that close with Israel either. Among other things, he donated about 2 million dollars to Arafat.

Israel views any potential improvement of relations between Iran and the US as a threat to its own interests and strategic ambitions in the Mideast, so naturally pro-Israeli agents operate in the US to prevent such a thing.

Reply to this | Report this

By dick, April 15 at 2:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Read Zev Chafets’ “ Israel Can Stand Up for Itself”, New York Times, 4/13/08. A clear threat that Israel will attack Iran if Bush does not, possibly the result of our 60 years of pandering to Israel.

Reply to this | Report this

By TDoff, April 15 at 2:04 pm #
(203 comments total)

You’d hope that at least the US and Iran could agree on hiring a competent PR firm to get their ‘secret’ nuclear negotiations some decent press coverage.

Here and there in bits and pieces on the web looks as though they gave the assignment to the US State Department, or the DOD.

Reply to this | Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, April 15 at 11:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

More scuttlebutt

These “back-Channel” guys are usually also “back-ward” and always thinking they are more important than they really are. Of course we don’t know anything about it all, because, A)it doesn’t mean much if W decides to drop a few bombs anyway (he could care less), and, B) heaven forbid that anyone should have even a clue about something potentially positive happening, when W&Co;. want to start another war for the hell of it(or are we just calling this a conflagration?).

Pickering is probably dirty, in a high-end, Cheney sort of way, the people he talks to are most likely of no particular merit or clout, and Israel already has the required nuclear fire power to construct that 45 minute Tehran parking lot already, without the US or anyone else even lifting a finger.

Of course, depending on who you are and who you are cheering for, today, that might be exactly what some folks have in mind.

The GDP of Sweden? Well, maybe. But certainly alot more hot air.

Reply to this | Report this

By DennisD, April 15 at 7:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Pay to play

Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret “back channel” discussions.

So how much taxpayer money is Bu$h Inc. paying off to Iran. Is there a country over there we’re not paying off to make it appear as if we’re in “control”.

The “surge” of American dollars has been the only thing keeping the lid on Iraq this long. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Reply to this | Report this

By cyrena, April 15 at 4:30 am #
(4172 comments total)

OK, he’s not the same Thomas Pickering that I was thinking of, but I STILL don’t like his resume. Maybe I’m just being paranoid, (which I think is reasonable these days) but I will ‘check him out’ further during normal hours. If he’s as ‘highly respected’ as they claim, my guys will know.

(fmr)Ambassador Thomas R Pickering

Tom Pickering has been since December 2006 Vice Chairman of Hills & Company, International Consultants. He retired as Senior Vice President International Relations and a member of the Executive Council of The Boeing Company on July 1, 2006 having served in the position for 5 and one half years. He was responsible for The Boeing Company’s relations with foreign governments and the company’s globalization. He joined the Company in January 2001 following his retirement as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Ambassador Pickering served as U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs since May 1997. Prior to that, he served briefly as the president of the Eurasia Foundation, a Washington-based organization that makes small grants and loans in the states of the former Soviet Union.

He held the personal rank of Career Ambassador, the highest in the U.S. Foreign Service. In a diplomatic career spanning five decades, he has served as U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Pickering also served on assignments in Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. From 1989 to 1992, he served as Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations in New York. He also served as Executive Secretary of the Department of State and Special Assistant to Secretaries William P. Rogers and Henry A. Kissinger from 1973 to 1974.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4213

Meantime, I don’t like that he was a major player at Boeing during the same time that Cheney was the major player at Halliburton, and I don’t like that he was secretary to Kissinger either.

Nope...this guy smells, but I’ll wait on the final verdict.

Still don’t like the ‘secret’ stuff.

Reply to this | Report this

By cyrena, April 15 at 4:11 am #
(4172 comments total)

The name Thomas Pickering leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, though I can’t place him exactly at this point.

Still, I don’t find anything the least bit “OK” with any back ally conversations between so-called ‘former US diplomats’. Admittedly, I’m too tired to read the entire piece, though I did see it posted at truthout as well.

So, maybe there’s something more encouraging in this communication, but it sounds shady to me. Why does it have to be ‘secret’?

Reply to this | Report this

By Thomas Billis, April 15 at 2:21 am #
(239 comments total)

Iran is a third world country

Iran is a third world country elevated by the rhetoric of this President and the stupidity of the American public.In order to steal large amounts of government money in the defense budget you must have enemies.With no real enemies on the horizon we have decided to invent them.Iran as a real threat to us is an invention.They have the gross national product of Sweeden.They have no refineries and even though they produce oil must send it out to be refined and then import it.They fought for eight years against the Iraqi Army and that ended in a draw.You know the Iraqi Army whose battle cry is “I surrender”.They would rather take a poison pill then help the Sunni based Al Qaida acquire weapons of mass destructions.A point that John McCain should learn.If they launched missles at Europe or Israel Tehran would be a parking lot in 45 minutes and they know it.So this threat of Iran is relevant to our national security how?

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Marshall, April 15 at 9:06 pm #
(366 comments total)

Re: Iran is a third world country

Funny - you could substitute “North Korea” for “Iran” in much of your post and still be accurate.  But oops - NK now has nuclear weapons!  Well, so much for your “impoverished countries don’t build nukes” premise.

“So what if Iran gets nukes!”, I hear you saying.  But you see, Iran’s threat isn’t so much directly against the U.S. as it is in the certainty that Iran getting nukes would result in a ME nuclear arms race.  Perhaps that’s okay with you.  It’s not okay with me.

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!

Name:

Email: (won't be displayed on the site)

Your Web Site:

Comment Title:

Your Comment:

Notify you when others comment on this article?

Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.