U. S. To Iran: Where’s The Beef?
That letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn’t the breakthrough many hoped for, to say the least. The U. S. was quick to dismiss the message as non-productive:
Senior U.S. officials dismissed an 18-page letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to President Bush on Monday, saying the document that broke 27 years of official and hostile silence between leaders of the two governments contained no proposals for resolving the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In the letter, Ahmadinejad sharply criticized Bush on a broad range of fronts, suggesting that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses of detainees in U.S.-run facilities from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and support for Israel were inconsistent with Bush’s Christian faith.
“Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God . . . . But at the same time, have countries attacked: the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed,” read the letter, which was delivered by Swiss diplomats, whose embassy received it in Tehran from Ahmadinejad’s foreign minister. The missive was Iran’s second public overture to Washington in two months, and the first originating entirely from Tehran.
“This letter isn’t it,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Associated Press. “This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort. It isn’t addressing the issues that we’re dealing with in a concrete way. . . . It is most assuredly not a proposal.”
(Read the letter in its entirety – it could have been written by Frank Rich – and to the intellectually impaired, no, I’m not comparing Rich to the Iranian president – merely saying Ahmadinejad has done his homework).
Ahmadinejad probably got what he wanted, though; positive press coverage and a chance to ‘take the high road’:
Steven R. Hurst, a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press calls the letter, a “deft trump card.” Mark Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. State Department official now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, told the AP that Ahmadinejad’s move was “an astute negotiating ploy.”
“It’s harder for the Americans to get 15 votes (unanimity) in the Security Council if they are seen as not willing to talk to the Iranians,” Fitzpatrick says.
Spiegel Online describes the letter was “a deft move for Ahmadinejad’s image in the Middle East. It forced Washington to reject a personal overture from Tehran, and it philosophized in Islamic terms about the decline of the West.” The German newsweekly reports that several leading German papers reacted skeptically. Financial Times Deutschland said the letter was merely “a big public relations push.”
The Independent of London called it “an extraordinary about-turn.”
Bottom line: it just got more difficult to get a united Security Council, as Fitzpatrick said…
Is the word “letter” the proper description for an 18-page document? I’m thinking “diatribe” or “manifesto” are more appropriate.
GW did the right thing when he refused Mother Sheehan’s call to meet him out at the entrance to his ranch, he’d do the right thing now by ignoring the propaganda letter from the Iranian President.
Wow, he even managed to squeeze in the obligatory “I know Saddam was a bad guy, but…” paragraph. He has done his homework.
Unfortunately, I agree that it just got harder to get a united Security Council to act in any serious way. Of course, the fact that anyone could look at a long screed that basically says “Everything is your fault and why on earth does Israel exist anyway?” and decide that resembles some kind of “personal overture” probably wasn’t very serious to begin with.
Why not respond to the letter with a diatribe of our own? Oh, let’s just throw this out and pretend they’re not human beings because they think bad thoughts about Israel? Come on, what harm could be caused by responding with a 40 page diatribe of our own? Tell them why they are wrong and why we are right. How “hard” is this? Whatever happened to arguing the merits, guys?
Mike, I’m all for arguing the merits – but do you really want high-level government officials haggling over theology with the president of Iran? This was a sermon, not an overture…
Sure. The discussion is necessary to make progress in the “I’ll kill you because my God says so” back and forth that is currently underway. This is payback for the crusades. We’re still getting payback from crap Britain did hundreds of years ago. What will be get hundreds of years from now? “Who cares since my children’s children children will be dead, so I can’t relate to it.” (My dad has made this argument about global warming. I find it the most selfish argument I’ve ever heard).
I don’t know why this can be dismissed out of hand. They’re trying to have a discussion. There is nothing wrong with giving them one. You also have to remember they are the Islamic Republic of Iran. That’s how we have to argue with them if we ever want to come to some agreement, but it is clear to me this is not wanted…
Whoa! My BS meter just redlined! “They’re trying to have a discussion.” Please tell me you aren’t referring to the Iranians?
This “letter” has only one purpose – and you’ve fallen for it – to undermine the US’s ability to win the sanctions argument at the UN by purporting to want a dialogue. And this dialogue will include a review, and an apology I suppose, for the Crusades?
My goodness.
In all matters of interest, just ask “too many steves”, for he has ALL the answers.
Seriously, what harm can of responding to the message in kind? Will it alienate Israel? What is the rationale to NOT respond? What are the risks of responding? I’m genuinely interested in why we shouldn’t respond. If you think they are bluffing, call them on it.
Grrr. Should be “Seriously, what harm can come of…”
I for one would be very interested to read own our government’s retort. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a coherent, intelligent, multi pronged, and official explanation in writing as to why we’re at war, beyond a simple “they hate freedom!” speech. It’s obviously not so cut and dry. But that’s how it’s presented isn’t it? So let’s lose the easy soundbites and really lay out our side of the story. That not happening is in itself a cause for concern. Because either we have no response or we think we’re too above them to even respond. Either way it reflects so poorly on us in the world community, and honestly even at home among the growing number of Bush/War opponents.
“In all matters of interest, just ask “too many steves”, for he has ALL the answers.”
Now THAT is bad advice!
The harm in responding is that it convers legitimacy on something that is contrived and intended to manipulate. The US, and broader International Community, have told Iran what they need to do: cease development of nuclear weapons. What more is there to discuss? The Crusades? The respective diety status of Muhammed and Jesus Christ? The value of the burka in mixed society?
If the Iranians want something other than nuclear weapons then they have not made that clear. If they want to negotiate they need to make it known, to us presumably because we are the ones they want something from, what it is they want. My read is that what they really want is nuclear weapon capability and so all this talk of dialogue, discussion, and diplomacy is nothing more than a ruse to buy them time to develop the knowledge and, ultimately, the weapon(s).
And for the record, the above are opinions not answers.
Ummm… convers should be confers.
What will we legitimize…that they have their own beliefs and opinions and the right to express them? It’s your “opinion” that the letter is intended to manipulate. You don’t know that for fact. And if there’s even the slightest possibility that they’re genuinly offering some kind of olive branch, then we are fools for not accepting. Even if the letter IS intended to manipulate, all the more reason to treat it seriously, because that would help us win sanctions, win favor throught the World. Of course we’d have to prove it though. And what better way to prove that then to entice them into a serious debate? Unless there’s some fear that it’s a debate we might not win. I believe we can win it. But the possibility of loss, however remote, is why it will never happen. Same reason why the president refused debates with Saddam.
“What are the risks of responding?”
Please see Neville Chamberlain for a brief history lesson on this platform of thought.
According to the great Mideast experts like Carter and Berger, we should try to talk them into behaving like rational, sentient human beings.
So the question is what recent actions have they taken to believe that this is now so? Have you actually read the contents of the letter? Sheer idiocy. Therefore – it follows that since that’s all we have as evidence of their newfound sanity, any discourse would be counterproductive at this time.
The history of Iran over the past 30 years or so belies any notion that this letter is some sort of olive branch.
As for debates, discussions, and negotiations, only a fool engages in these with dishonest and disreputable people or states, for no other reason than that doing so is a waste of time.
Besides, we have one issue and one issue only with Iran at this time: nuclear weapons development. We don’t want them to acquire them, plain and simple. So what, exactly, are we going to discuss?
The step they’ve taken is sending this letter … after how many years of no such communication? The problem is not seeing the steps however small when they’re taken right in front of us. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t be skeptical, only that we should not outright dismiss this. While I agree that yes, actions speaker louder than words, sometimes speaking the words is an action in and of itself.
dmac: I don’t think the contents of the letter are sheer idiocy. This is what I mean about arguing the merits.
There is plenty of meat in the letter that can be addressed directly or indirectly and could provide a very good neutral response.
TMS: Discuss the questions he asks and the items he addresses. You know, what you might do if you receive a letter from anybody. Respond. Line by line, paragraph by paragraph. How long could it take? A few days to get the translation right? Discuss how the United States places value on letting each person find their own path and take their own responsibility to find their way to either the Almighty or some other unifying power.
As for a comparison to Neville, Iran isn’t invading countries, are they? Maybe I missed that news article about them annexing Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Actually, that might be a good way out of Iraq…let Iran annex it! Sorry, bad joke.
In any event, neither of you answered the question, “what are the risks”? Making a comparison to Neville is not a response as you didn’t adequately describe why the metaphor is somehow supposed to talk to me.
Oh, we could be direct and discuss why we don’t want them to have nukes. What ever happened to being up front with people?
I also disagree that the contents of the letter were sheer idiocy. Did he not lay out a utopian vision of how things could be, and then ask if both he and President Bush were working toward that? Obviously we strongly disagree over the issue of The Holocaust and the existence of Israel. But the US gov’t – like every gov’t – is not without it’s secrets. Pointing out that we have secret prisons, that there were no WMD, that many Iraqi civilians have died in the war, that we are ‘monotheist’, that Africans are in crisis, that the media intensfied our fears post 9/11….yeah some of these things are hard to swallow…but they aren’t untrue. Necessary maybe. Tragic definetely. But not false. Not idiotic. If you believe we’ve done no wrong, then it will all seem idiotic I suppose. But if there’s going to be war, let it come after every possible avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted. I’m sure we can go tit for tat with them about their own wrongdoings. And yeah, what’s the point of that right? Perhaps in doing so things will only escalate. But then again, perhaps it will lead to a greater unity. We’ll never know until we try.
There may be some value worldwide in responding to the letter with a good fisking, at least in the sense of reminding people that the BS in that letter is, in fact, BS. I do think the Bush administration has been derelict in the rhetoric department, and the longer you let the enemy monopolize the microphone, the more people start to think you have no answers, even if your instinct is not to dignify the nonsense with a response. We could use a few “tear down this wall” moments.
But that would be the only response that would make any sense, because if you’ve read the entire letter, you’ll soon realize that any attempt to describe this accusatory screed as an “overture” is just not true. In fact, we have already responded to it, by telling the Iranians that if they want to get serious, then get serious.
The mere act of talking is not necessarily good, especially if one side is playing a poor hand and needs to stall for time. That’s what the Neville Chamberlain reference means. Hitler was in no position to fight the Western powers when they talked and talked and made no serious objection to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the taking over of Austria and the eventual subjugation of Czechoslovakia. By the time the West woke up from the dream that talks would sate Hitler, it was too late.
As I said before, I don’t blame the Iranians for wanting the bomb. It certainly makes perfect sense for them, whether they just want to rattle it or whether more apocalyptic visions dance in their heads. So then you’ve got to ask yourself: How could we talk the Iranians out of pursuing the bomb? I can’t see any way we could, because there’s nothing we could offer them that couldn’t be bested by having the weapon in their hands. So what’s the point of talking with them, particularly if they show no interest in actual negotiations? It seems pretty clear it’s a stall for time.
Do we really want to just roll over for them that way? I’ve got an argument that it would be totally illogical for the Iranians to use the bomb, which is true, but I’ve got to look at over 25 years of the Iranians doing totally illogical things, and usually getting away with it. I’m left thinking trusting the Iranians would be even less wise than trusting the Soviets during the Cold War. And ultimately the Cold War didn’t end through negotiation; it ended through capitulation. I’d love for the Iranian government to disappear that peacefully, but I have my doubts that it will.
It’s never too late. What about the cuban missile crisis? Diplomacy reigned. As for WWII and Hitler, we had other reasons for entering that war and it wasn’t as altruistic as history now paints, nor was it entirely motivated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Sound familiar? Some would argue the real reason for us entering the war AKA “stopping Hitler” wasn’t about Hitler at all but motivated by our own socio-economic interests at the time. I don’t think Hitler and Iran can be compared in this instance. Iran isn’t invading other countries. And we don’t have an open dialogue with Iran. That’s like saying we can never negotiate with anybody because it didn’t work out with one person. I agree with you about them wanting the bomb though. The US has a stockpile of them. Maybe if we disarmed a little, other countries wouldn’t feel so threatened by us, nor have reason to go arm themselves, thus endangering mankind further.
vivian, I’m sorry, my spam filter has blocked a couple of your comments today…bear with me, I don’t know why, but I try to rescue legitimate comments whenever possible…
Well, let’s see: WWII was the result of a cabal of war profiteers and the only reason other nations must arm is because of the big, bad United States. Perahps your spam filter is working fine.
I think Dennis is wrong to say there would be no value in responding to the letter as he feels it is clearly not an “overture”. Iran will never be in a position to fight us, or Israel, even with a nuke. So your reference to WWII just doesn’t hold any water (IMO).
You’ve said yourself you understand why Iran wants a nuke. What do you think the reason is if it is not because of the big, bad United States (i.e. that our arsenal is enormous and we could literally wipe any country off the map (with the possible exception of Russia and China, but we could definitely kill most of their people) in a matter of minutes)?
I think a refutation to their point in the letter about it being a right of a country to pursue R&D is necessary. This is the crux of the entire argument. How would you argue that a nation can’t perform R&D even if it is to acquire nuclear weapons? We’ve done it. Should we attack ourselves? What is the argument you want to make to them?
mike, since your argument about Iran’s getting a nuke seems to boil down to “they’d be crazy to use it,” you might recall the same applied to the Soviet Union. But that didn’t mean we just merrily waved them along, uncaring of how many they developed, how they deployed their forces, etc. Now you may argue that the nuclear angle makes all analogies pre-1945 null and void, but I disagree. Obviously we’re not convincing either one of us in this debate.
As for blaming the United States for Iran wanting a nuke, let’s imagine the United States buries all its nukes, turns swords into plowshares, etc. Do you blieve Iran will no longer want a nuke? I don’t. The Iranians don’t want a nuke to counter the United States. They want a nuke because it makes them more powerful, no matter what the relative level of power of any other country. My big fear is they may also want a nuke to start a war to bring on the hidden imam of whatever oddball theory their president likes to talk about. I’m not certain about that, but I also can’t afford to blithely dismiss apocalyptic rhetoric from a man who may soon have it in his power to bring on a home-grown apocalypse.
As for the right of them to pursue anything, I have a hard time buying into the notion that dictators have much of a natural right to anything, particularly if those dictators have made threats to wipe out an ally. I didn’t buy the moral relativism of treating the Soviet Union as just another country during the Cold War, and I don’t buy it today.
I’m curious mike; if you were in charge, where would you see this all going? What do you think we’d have to give up to get the Iranians to stop? Are you ultimately OK with the Iranians getting a nuke? Are they no better or worse than anyone else?
Dennis,
I was just asking for more clarity. Thank you. I agree that the US having nukes isn’t the sole reason Iran wants one, but the power struggle during the cold war centered around Russia and the US and both were very well armed and that certainly tells a story about how to get power/the US ear.
I am actually ok with the Iranians obtaining a nuke. I’ve said previously I’m not worried about this end. I do think they have the capability to talk seriously and I think they have proven this in the past few years (maybe not 26 years ago).
I have found that making judgements about “better”/”worse” for entities like countries or something very abstract is a difficult/touchy thing. To answer your question bluntly though, I feel they are no “worse” than Pakistan or India or China or current Russia. They are human beings and I think there is always potential when dealing with human beings.
Via Liberal Oasis, what do you think about this open letter, which has been conveniently left out of the discussion (I didn’t read about it until today at LO)?
I’m not sure “conveniently” is the right word there, unless you’re accusing people here of deliberately hiding that letter, which I assume you’re not. I haven’t seen it until you pointed to it.
As for what I think of it, I’d love to accept it on its face, but I can’t, knowing the context of what Iranian leaders have said to their own people and what actions they’ve been taking over the years (including recent years; if anything, recent years have show some backsliding from the days when they let more moderate elements gain power).
As for making judgments, I should stress that I’m not asking you to judge an entire nation so much as individual regime. Given the examples you listed, I’d say the Iranians have proven themselves worse, even among that sorry lot (although I don’t think I’d be as harsh on the Indian government).
You’re right that they are human beings, and there’s always potential with humans. The problem is there’s potential for good and evil. There’s no need for demonizations here. People of all stripes have proven themselves quite capable of terrible things just as much as great things. Looking at the history of the Iranian regime, it’s hard for me to see where you find such confidence in their potential for good, or at least in the assumption that the potential for good outweighs the long record of a tendency for bad.
What would the Iranians have to do to make you less sanguine? They’ve supported terrorists, their leader talks about being bathed in a holy light and makes, at best, some very impolitic comments about whether Israel has a right to exist. When do you start wondering if maybe they’re not the sharpest poker players after all?
Dennis, I meant the national conversation/media/etc. (I realized that was unclear after posting, no biggee though).
I’m not talking about removing all doubt about their intentions. I’m talking about preparing to show the UN they are not rational by talking to them to prove as such. We have nothing other than “they supported these terrorists a number of years ago and now they’re being impolitic”. In order to show they’re irrational, I see no better way than having an open discussion with them. If they are rational and they somehow convince us of this (somehow I don’t know if this is possible to convince you in particular…what would they have to do?) then, no harm done. If they respond with irrational Israel hatred and it becomes clear they want to start a nuclear war, then, well, there you have it. While having the discussion continue gathering data about their intentions by the means we’re currently using (whatever NSA programs haven’t been leaked yet) and make decisions based on that evidence as well. I’m just damned sick of the fear-mongering that is occurring. It’s been constant during my lifetime and I’m sick of it.
Just re-read the last paragraph of Pres. Ahmadenejad’s letter. Seems to me like finally Pres. Bush’s born again Christian sensibilities can be put to good use. If there’s one thing they can maybe agree on, it’s the importance of faith. I mean that’s his bread and butter right? Look how well he mobilized all the right wing religious folks here in the US. Seems to me like overall the great disconnect isn’t about uranium. He’s being asked about his core fundamental beliefs. Funny how he only likes to discuss those here in the US. Like when a reporter asks him a tough question, he goes right to his core fundamental beliefs. But when a deeper explanation of them is actually asked of him, he won’t even dignify it with a response. Too bad…in this instance it might actually help. I know some of you think…there’s nothing to talk about except this issue of Uranium, but don’t you think after 26 years or however long the silence between us has been, that we might work up to that? Why jump right into bed? How about a little conversation first? Not to oversimply, but you do catch more flies with honey…
“In order to show they’re irrational, I see no better way than having an open discussion with them.”
So you remain unconvinced of their irrationality? Repeated calls for the abolition of the state of Israel and a letter which seeks to convey the basic message of: accept Islam or die, coupled with 30 years of experience leave you unable to make that judgement?
I see little upside in talking to them. Madeline Albright successfully made the case during the Clinton presidency that we should talk to Kim in North Korea. How’d that turn out?
The only possible positive of engaging in a dialogue would be to manipulate the Iranians into publically and unequivocally demonstrating that their intentions are malevolent for the region, Israel, and the West. But, then, I think that is already quite clearly the case.
Well, TMS, I’m actually convinced Kim is a raving lunatic and now that we’ve confirmed that, we’ve done absolutely nothing about it. Now you’re suggesting we do something about a lunatic that I’m not quite convinced is a lunatic. Ok, do whatever you want. I’ll take my opinion and go home.
I really don’t think the case is as clear as you think it is. I’ve stated this in previous threads and have been similarly scoffed at. It’s not as though Israel’s hands are clean or their leaders are any more rational. What is rational about a people who believe their God promised them a stretch of land? I mean, seriously? This is a question outside of how they have gone about obtaining the land and whether or not it is acceptable for them to have done so, I’m talking about the overall craziness of this thought. It’s the same level of craziness of Arabs claiming the land was promised to them. I don’t see a difference in the level of lunacy on that core issue (point of reference, I’m an atheist).
I don’t think the letter says “accept Islam or die”. I think it was an attempt to find common ground with the president or any (supposed) Christian/believer in [one] God.
I think a response to the letter would be good, also, to clarify such statements as:
“Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?”
or
“The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions” [Notice the "s" on the end] “and says: (3.64) Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)”
Show me where you see the threats you think you see and we can discuss. Show me a quote of his and I’ll show you a Bible quote of similar quality. I’m not that hot on the monotheism talk (obviously), but justice and human dignity are great goals. He thinks the only means is monotheism for the whole world and I obviously disagree, but I’m not going to say “wow, this guy is a lunatic and wants to kill us”.
Do you think the phrase “Bear witness that we are Muslims” is a threat? It could be, I won’t dispute that, but it’s one of the only places I can see where a thinly veiled threat might be included. Show me others and perhaps I will reconsider.
Also, should we have invaded Korea to stop Kim instead?