Private Note to Bush from Hagel Calls For Direct, Unconditional, Comprehensive Talks with Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002471.php

Private Note to Bush from Hagel Calls For Direct, Unconditional, Comprehensive Talks with Iran

« Tonight: Clemons on Air America; Wilkerson on Colbert Report | Main

October 31, 2007
Private Note to Bush from Hagel Calls For Direct, Unconditional, Comprehensive Talks with Iran


I have just secured a private letter -- not yet publicly released -- from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush and copied to Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Stephen Hadley. I should add that I did not receive this letter from Senator Hagel but from other sources.

The letter urges the President to pursue "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran."

In the letter, both attached (Hagel letter pdf) and reprinted in full below, Hagel warns that "unless there is a strategic shift {from the current situation}, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months." Hagel continues, "I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek."

Senator Hagel encourages President Bush to take the bold strategic step of offering a completely different course for US-Iran relations. He writes about direct unconditional talks:

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

This letter is a call for serious, level-headed rationality from one of the Senate's most stalwart "classic conservatives."

I have since learned that the letter somehow made its way to US Central Command Commander William Fallon, perhaps through Defense Secretary Gates or other avenues, and Fallon allegedly communicated with the Senator that serious articulations of American interests and consideration of the options Hagel recommends are much needed in this current political and policy environment.

I need to also report that while I am in complete agreement with the content of Senator Hagel's letter and had the privilege of moderating a dinner discussion with him yesterday evening, the content of this letter came via other sources to me -- and I trust the Senator and his staff will respect the fact that I felt it important to bring this letter to public attention and have not violated any trust with any person in his office.

Full Text of Letter from Senator Chuck Hagel to President George W. Bush on US-Iran Policy, 17 October 2007:

October 17, 2007

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President:

I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.

In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.

I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

Thank you for considering my views.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H.

Chuck Hagel
United States Senator

cc: Condoleezza Rice

Robert M. Gates

Stephen J. Hadley

This is a letter benchmarking the views of one of the most grounded, foreign policy savvy, common sense thinkers about the eroding state of America's military and national security portfolio. And he's a Midwestern American Republican who served in the United States Military.

Senator Hagel will be speaking for the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday, 8 November, at the Capital Hilton at 11 am on the subject of America's Iran policy -- and no doubt this letter that I have secured will be among the topics of discussion.

-- Steve Clemons

[rodeodance]

1. yes. talks must start. I hope BushCo gets LOTS of similar letters

[mod mom]

2. the sad thing is bu$h is so spiteful, this might just push it to do something crazier.

[mmonk]

3. Good luck with that Senator.

The neocons aren't rational people.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Chuck needs to realize something that we Democrats already know--

Bush/Cheney has NO INTENTION of heading off a confrontation with Iran, same as they had no intention of allowing weapons inspectors, diplomacy and accurate intel to work in averting the Iraq War. They want us at the brink, and then they will wait for a "trigger", and then say it's all Iran's fault, we have no choice, we must strike now. Unless Chuck is smart enough to realize this, and is just trying to get himself on the record and clear his name for history. Either way, thanks for trying, Chuck--proud you're my Senator.

[Inuca]

5. I hope that Hagel may have wanted...

... to go on record for clearly stating his point of view to the administration before he takes a more vocal stand on this. At least I hope he will... I am really curious what he will say at the event next week, the one mentioned at the bottom, after the letter.

[TwilightGardener]

6. He got bashed pretty hard for his public criticisms of BushCo--

a lot of Repubs thought he should have stated his concerns privately, though he says he always did first before going public--so you're probably right.

[NNN0LHI]

7. What is stopping Hagel from jumping on the first plane to Tehran to get the ball rolling?

He too busy? Rhetoric is nice but it will take action to help out here.

Don

[Inuca]

8. And how would his jumping on a plane to Tehran help?

Not much more than you or me doing the same thing.

[NNN0LHI]

9. He is one of only 100 US senators

That makes him quite different than you or I.

Doesn't it?

Don

[Inuca]

12. The point is

exactly what you said, he is ONE of the 100 senators. He cannot enforce policy all by himself, and most definitely cannot engage in meaningful diplomatic talks. So yes, he is different, but "jumping on a plane" would still make no sense at all.

[NNN0LHI]

15. You tried suggesting that Hagel is no different than you or I

My point was to show suggesting that is nothing but hot air.

Went right over your head I guess?

Don

[Inuca]

22. I understood your point

I am not sure you understood mine, but I do not know how to put it more clearly than I already did in the post above, i.e., a single senator CANNOT make policy nor engage in diplomatic talks. In that respect, Hagel is indeed not different from you or I. In other respects, of course he is different, for instance our letters to * are not likely to make it the news.

And you are wrong, Hagel is much more than hot air. Trying but not succeeding does not mean that you do not mean what you say (and do, as Hagel has), not that your efforts are worthless. The man has most likely thrown his political career to the high winds for what believes in, and I think he deserves respect, even if his name is followed by a R instead of a D, and even if you/I do not agree with his position on other issues.

[babylonsister]

24. I'm with you, Inuca. I give Hagel an A for effort. To me, this letter

shows how concerned he is and he wanted to publicly voice that concern. I give him props for at least addressing this. And I also don't think a trip overseas would do much good. Just look at others who've done it; nothing's changed, though I applaud their efforts as well.

[NNN0LHI]

25. I find it damn hard to have any respect for anyone who makes the choice...

...to stay associated with the party of bathroom cruisers, and diaper wearing prostitute customers.

Just can't do it.

Don

[Inuca]

27. It is up to you, of course

I just cannot see the world and the people in it just in black and white. And in my book Hagel is a very acceptable, I would even go so far as to say pleasing, shade of gray :-).

By the way, have you read/seen any of the statements Hagel has made about the current state of the republican party? The interview he had on Maher a month or so ago (a gazzilion links on youtube) would be a good and fun place to start.

[H2O Man]

11. Right. He is aware

that US Senators are not in a position that allows them to conduct foreign policy. It is best if he focuses on working in the capacity of a member of the Senate.

[NNN0LHI]

14. That may hold true for Senators who just talk a good game. But not for some others

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302016.html

Defying Bush, Senator Visits Syria

Democrat Talks With Leader of Nation Iraq Report Calls Key

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 14, 2006; Page A22

The White House lashed out at Syria yesterday, as Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) defied pressure from the administration and went ahead with talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Afterward, Nelson said he sees a new "crack in the door" for U.S.-Syria relations and help in stabilizing Iraq.

Nelson is the first high-ranking U.S. official to meet with the young Syrian leader since the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended last week that Washington reach out to Damascus to win help in shutting down the insurgency in Iraq. "Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and/or the Iraqi army to be part of a solution," Nelson said in a conference call from Jordan with reporters. "I think there's a crack in the door for discussions to continue."

Nelson cautioned, however, that he approached the meeting with "realism, not optimism."

Both the White House and the State Department discouraged the trip. "We certainly do not encourage members of Congress to be traveling to Syria," White House spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday.

[H2O Man]

16. I could also

list others in congress who have attempted such things. And I do not question that they do so in good faith. However, the separation of powers defined by the US Constitution is pretty clear, and members of congress are not supposed to attempt diplomatic missions, unless they are coordinated by the executive office.

It would not be a good thing to have legislators overstep their boundries. I'm not sure many democrats would think that republican representatives or senators attempting such things if there was a democratic administration.

[NNN0LHI]

18. It would not be a good thing to have legislators overstep their boundaries?

Doesn't that sound like something Bush and his minions would say?

Madman Bush has shown he acknowledges no boundaries but you are saying the legislators should not overstep theirs?

Oh, pishaw.

Don

[H2O Man]

20. No.

I am not aware of the administration suggesting that the Constitution should be respected. Attempting to twist my saying that the Constitution is clear is weak.

[bdamomma]

31. let those senators overstep their boundaries, now is the time

to confront those thugs who are breaking the laws.

[Didereaux]

26. You are wrong on your 'overstepping' statement...

Senators are in fact empowered to interact on foreign affairs by the Constitution. That is why the 'Advise and Consent' clause exists in the document, together with the requirement of ratification. Further in order to 'advise and consent' in an intelligent manner it is incumbent upon the Senators to actively pursue foreign policy issues.

Discussions with foreign leaders is not setting policy, nor can they commit the US to imlementing such, all foreign leaders are aware of this. Can such meetings be used politically for good or bad? Of course they can, and are, BUT they are NOT unconstitutional, and it is past time for the ignorant masses to quit using such terms until such time as their ignorance of the subject is alleviated.

[H2O Man]

35. Wrong. n/t

[Didereaux]

39. Simply saying 'Wrong' is insufficient...EXPLAIN why n/t

[H2O Man]

41. Wrong again. n/t

[Didereaux]

42. you just made my ignore list...congrats

[TwilightGardener]

30. Syria is a little different than Iran--we don't even have good intelligence

on Iran--we get our info on them from other countries' diplomats (like the Swiss). It would be crazy and inappropriate for Hagel to just up and go to Tehran on his own. He knows what he can and can't do.

[NNN0LHI]

34. It would be crazy and inappropriate for Hagel to just up and go to Tehran on his own?

In actually It would be crazy and inappropriate for Hagel NOT to go to Tehran on his own with what is on the line here.

He knows that.

Don

[TwilightGardener]

36. So, so many reasons why it would be wrong for him to do so.

And dangerous--remember the British sailors? Hagel's not stupid or arrogant enough to do this.

[Inuca]

38. Including, just of the top of my head...

that we don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran. The whole argument is ridiculous.

[bdamomma]

29. maybe that is the sort of action they need to do, defy *.

and say throw a wrench into things.

[TwilightGardener]

33. What would happen if Hagel, Biden, or ANY member of the Senate

were to go there and try to deal on their own? What happens if there's a misunderstanding or some other incident, and WW3 starts? That Senator will get blamed. What happens if they're taken hostage? There's a reason the State Dept. exists--this is CONDI'S job--inappropriate for a Senator to interfere. All he can do is gather information and make legislation and recommendations.

[bdamomma]

37. but Condi is not doing her job.

but point taken.

[rucky]

40. I think the Constitution expressly prohibits that. n/t

[H2O Man]

10. Hagel

had worked with Joe Biden to try to slow the rush to war in Iraq; their effort was betrayed by Dick Gephardt, who was attempting to promote his presidential fantasy. For more information, see "Hubris" by Isikoff & Corn, page 127.

[Inuca]

13. I do not have the book

could you maybe quote a few sentences or briefly summarize? Thanks.

[H2O Man]

19. Sure.

"By the end of September, the president's war resolution was no sure thing. The White House had trimmed it back, dumping the language that authorized Bush to go to war to achieve stability in the region. Still, the White House faced a threat. Senator Joe Biden and two Republican senators on his foreign relations committee -- Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel -- were pushing an alternative that would narrow the president's authority further. Under their proposal, Bush would be able to attack Iraq only for the purpose of destroying Iraq's WMDs, and only after seeking UN approval. If the United Nations said no, Bush would have to come back to Congress and demonstrate that the Iraqi weapons threat was so 'grave' that only military action could eliminate it. The Biden-Lugar measure was attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans. And, according to Biden, he and his allies were getting backdoor advice and encouragement from the administration's reluctant warriors: Powell and Armitage. The White House was worried about Biden's endeaver, and Bush was furious. 'I don't want a resolution such as this that ties my hands,' he told Senator Trent Lott. The president, according to Lott, gave him an emphatic order: 'Derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day'." (page 127)

The proper way for congress to limit the president's potential to attack Iran is by exercising their powers as legislators. That includes educating the public -- one of their primary responsibilites -- and through legislation. They can also lobby the White House. But their Constitutional duties do nor include diplomatic adventures, unless sent by the State Department.

[Inuca]

21. Thanks n/t

[bdamomma]

32. This passage speaks volumes

'I don't want a resolution such as this that ties my hands,' he told Senator Trent Lott. The president, according to Lott, gave him an emphatic order: 'Derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day'." (page 127)


We have a very sick sick man in office, someone should tie his hands.

[SpiralHawk]

17. "Screw Hagel. Screw all of you. I'm the Deciderer." - Commander AWOL

[annabanana]

23. "the results that we seek."

He is clearly not "in the loop". The results they seek are right on track. How long will they let the wool sit on their head and cover their eyes?

[Inuca]

28. The "we" refers to the country as a whole

do not assume that every single word is meant at face value. I think that Hagel has stopped thinking of himself as part of the same "we" (in foreign policy at least) as the administration a long time ago.