conveniently shoved up into oblivion of archives. But speak expressively about Iran's long-term orienteers. In 2002-3 Iran made several overtures towards the US proposing comprehensive settlement of all issues, indicating flexibility. All were ignored by the Bushy adm.

From CNN Transcripts; US diplomat talking about his contacts with Iranians in 2001-2:

JAMES DOBINS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR AFGHANISTAN: They were cooperating. Their objectives were largely the same as ours. They had, after all, had been fighting the Taliban long before we were.

SESNO: So the point is, you were doing business, real business with the Iranians?

DOBINS: Absolutely.

SESNO: Dobins remembers it all well. In the fall of 2001, during the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, Iran cooperated on the ground -- providing vital information and safe passage for humanitarian supplies. .. DOBINS: Iran was prepared to participate in a program to assist the creation of a new Afghan national army under U.S. leadership. ..

DOBINS: Well, the Iranians clearly wanted to expand this dialogue to other issues.

SESNO: What did they say exactly?

What other issues, exactly?

DOBINS: They were ready to discuss the Middle East peace process, their role with the Palestinian Authority and with the Palestinians, support for terrorism.

SESNO: They told you this?

DOBINS: They said they were prepared to discuss the other issues on the U.S. agenda.

SESNO: What did you do with that information?

DOBINS: I passed it back to Washington.

SESNO: What response did you get to that memo?

DOBINS: None.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/06/sitroom.02.html

Then was the Iranian offer passed thorugh the usual Swiss channel. Iran indicated agreement to change policies on Israel and other issues. The actual text passed to the US, in PDF:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf

For those smart asses who will cling to the formulation that Iran only agreed to discuss the issues, not to accept American positions, there's the remark by the mediator:

"By "agree" he meant to agree with the points themselves referred to as "US Aims",.. not only to agree that the US puts these points on the agenda."

The Swissh mediator concludes: "I got the clear impression that there is a strong will of the regime to tackle the problem with the US and to try it with this initiative."

What was the American reaction? LARRY WILKERSON, FORMER POWELL (Sec of State) CHIEF OF STAFF:

"It died in the vice president's office with the same mantra that he normally used to kill such things, we don't talk to evil."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/18/sitroom.03.html

Iran made its strategic priorities clear. It does not intend to "wipe off the map" (translations is incorrect of course). Something for the war-crowd to try and explain away, and keep on the talk of "denying while preparing the next one". It was there, and the US refused it.

Neosons kept on spewing threats. Daddy Richard Perle:

"We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: “You're next. You're next unless you stop the practice of supporting terrorism.”

http://www.fpri.org/transcripts/annualdinner.20011114.perle.nextstopiraq.html

"Because having destroyed the Taliban, having destroyed Saddam's regime, the message to the others is, "You're next." Two words. Very efficient diplomacy. " You're next, and if you don't shut down the terrorist networks on your territory, we'll take you down, too."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/perle.html

Note that Perle doesn;t mention WMDs. No. No need. You're Next simply because you support terrorism (Israelocentric Perle is focused on anti-Israeli terrorism, not al Qaeda).

So Iran offered comprehensive peace, US answered "look at Saddam and know u're next". Iran decided to get nuclear deterrent. Makes sense?

I think there are a lot of Americans that understand Iran isn't the monster it is painted to be.  Many of us remember how Iran helped in Afghanistan after 9/11 but we also remember Iran's VERY public policy NOT to help the US in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/26/uiran.xml

But they did make other overtures - I remember them offering to rescue our downed pilots (and it took me a while to dig up the article, but here it is):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E7D71F3FF935A25753C1A9679C8B63

The Iran question has always been a bit of a thorn in the side of this administration.  Bush didn't make things any easier with the "axis of evil" references or the missed opportunities.  But Iran also shoulders plenty of blame.  Both sides have to be willing to admit mistakes and make promises that could be viewed as victories and defeats.

That is how these things go.  To my knowledge, only one of the frontrunner candidates has made it clear that they understand the value of good statesmanship in this situation - Barak Obama.  He doesn't really line up very well with my political views, but he is my favorite candidate because his ideas are fresh.  He is a different generation of leader, and I think he understands how America has nothing to fear from Iran.  He seems like a guy who can admit mistakes and move to fix them.  I think his election would immediately help America's image in the world, and his actions would do the same.

But, back to the point - both country's leadership is too stubborn right now to make any real diplomatic progress.  We'll have to wait until each country has a changing of the guard - but both countries are in the same boat as those that are interested in reconciliation are rarities.