Letter from Ahmadinejad to Bush

hallelujah

Here is the letter sent from the Iranian President to the US President. Some good point made. He talks about peace but also in the past about wipping Israel off the map. Very difficult situation.

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE11Ak01.html

Dirk Gently

Good letter. Good to see it getting public attention, His last attempt at peace talks with the U.S., where he called for direct talks in a letter given to them through one of the Scandinavian embassies a few years ago was dismissed by the U.S. and didn't receive any credits in the main media.

Makes some great points even if the last bit of it was full of religious unity stuff. I'm sure it will give the Bible belt in America some food for thought though. Also made some good points about the western media talking up fear and convincing people of the need to attack before being attacked themselves. The western media often mis-quotes these letters and speeches such as when he called for regime change in America and Israel and that got reported as meaning Israel gets wiped of the map. Similar situation as in Venezuela when Chavez asked for a referendum to allow him to contest future elections and it was reported as him suspending elections for the next 25 years. There is alot we don’t know about Iran and unfortunately most of our info is coming from dubious western media sources which tend to paint the worst picture possible. Sure I won't really like to live there under religious rule but there are alot of places on the planet like that and worse.

I wonder if there will be a dialogue between the two countries or if the U.S. will dismiss this attempt and push ahead with its confrontational policy. Would love to see a backlash in the Bible belt of America with all the talk of Jesus and would he approve of American policy.

johnthesavage

hallelujah wrote:

.....but also in the past about wipping Israel off the map.

That was a deliberate mistranslation by MEMRI, and not the first either. Ahmadinejad has been portrayed as a holocaust-denying lunatic bent on the annihilation of Israel. He actually called for the removal of the Israeli regime and said nobody should accept its legitimacy.
A full translation of the often misquoted speech from last October was made available by the New York Times

MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) is an organisation which provides free translations from arabic media to western journalists. It was founded by Yigal Carmon, a colonel with 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and who subsequently worked as counter-terrorism advisor to Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin. The MEMRI website used to list the names of its 6 staff members, 4 of them former Israeli military people. Some of their work has drawn very stong criticism, see here, for example

flogen

Yeah, an interesting read and plenty of fair points but I hardly see what it will do to encourage discussion between the two nations; he hardly makes any point about what he practically plans to do in order to ensure the world that there will be no Nuclear weapons in Iran.

It would be a good start for the two countries to form a basic understanding and agreement, and while an understanding is possible an agreement is not IMO; the US will put its spin on its failures and mistakes and it certainly isn't going to agree that they exist.

All in all, a good letter but utterly pointless; the issues at hand are not discussed, it all amounts to the Iranian President saying "you're not being Christian, and the only way you will be is if you stop threatening people". Fair point, as is the issue of seeing all advancements in the ME as a threat; but where's the solution?

Squaddy

Bush probably wont even read it it will be probably thrown in the fire already! Bush already is on his way to Iran!

Dirk Gently

Looks like the letter has been officially dismissed by the whitehouse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1782388,00.html

They can hardly claim to be exploring all diplomatic avenues if they dismiss this attempt at dialogue from Iran. Surely an American response to the letter can pose questions to Iran about their nuclear ambitions. Looks like the Whitehouse fears an open dialogue as they see it as a threat to their plans to isolate and attack Iran. It’s a bad day when you can't get a diplomat to reply to the letter and turn the tables on Iran. Is their any diplomats left in Washington or are their just hawks left?

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

Looks like the letter has been officially dismissed by the whitehouse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1782388,00.html

They can hardly claim to be exploring all diplomatic avenues if they dismiss this attempt at dialogue from Iran.

What attempt at dialogue? As I pointed out in the Iran thread a week or two ago when the letter was made public, it provides no basis for breaking the deadlock, merely an appeal to Bush to find his religion. Not very useful. And it's a seven-page not very useful.

NTM

fly_agaric

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran wrote:

[after paragraph about WW2 and the holocaust] Again let us assume that these events are true...

I read this when this letter came out and couldn't make out if it is just that he believes the holocaust is a lie (no change there) or does he now believe the whole of WW2 is a lie?

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran wrote:

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems.

Er...I think I'll take liberal democracy with all its faults over theocracy [Islamic or Christian] any-day. It is funny that Bush's right-wing Christian supporters would probably agree that more religion (especially the kind you ram down the throats of others) is the answer to the worlds' problems!

There are some good points in the letter but they are somewhat ruined by the other not-so-good stuff and by the fact that, just as Bush and the current US admin. lecturing other countries about democracy and human rights can sound terribly hypocritical at present, Iran has no real moral high ground to speak from on alot of the issues raised in the letter.

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

What attempt at dialogue? As I pointed out in the Iran thread a week or two ago when the letter was made public, it provides no basis for breaking the deadlock, merely an appeal to Bush to find his religion. Not very useful. And it's a seven-page not very useful.

NTM

The point is that it gave Bush an opportunity to put questions to Iran in his reply to the letter. The fact that he chose to ignore the letter and waste an opportunity to question Irans nucelar programme and other issues in the public domain makes it look more and more like he doesn't want a diplomatic solution.

There was nothing stopping him answering some of the questions and asking more of his own putting Iran under pressure to respond to his questions.

Squaddy

The war on Iran wont be imminent because Iran went back to selling oil in dollars.

johnthesavage

Squaddy wrote:

The war on Iran wont be imminent because Iran went back to selling oil in dollars.

The argument that the USA would attack Iran to prevent a euro-denominated oil bourse is not true. This article explains why the euro cannot threaten the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

A "preemptive" military strike against Iran would not be due to any direct threat to the United States, but rather the potential threat to its US-friendly neighbours. The military support of the hugely unpopular House of Saud was of the utmost importance for the United States, and still is. A Shi'ite uprising in Saudi Arabia, although unlikely in the short term, would be supported (maybe stirred up) by Iran. This is certainly feared in Washington.
Perhaps more important is Iran's ability to stop almost half the world's supply of crude oil - they could do so any time they wished.

The potential of a nuclear armed Iran 10 or 15 years from now is unthinkable for Washington as it would change the political landscape of the Middle East completely.

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

The point is that it gave Bush an opportunity to put questions to Iran in his reply to the letter.

It's not as if the US hasn't already made its concerns public; Bush doesn't need to put them in a letter to make them any more official. I don't see how the Iranian letter contained anything but an attempt to divert the focus of attention (and blame) away from itself. In your case, it seems to have worked.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

It's not as if the US hasn't already made its concerns public; Bush doesn't need to put them in a letter to make them any more official. I don't see how the Iranian letter contained anything but an attempt to divert the focus of attention (and blame) away from itself. In your case, it seems to have worked.

NTM

Do you not think a series of open letters between the two leaders would do more to gain public support for Bush? I for one would be a lot more understanding of a need to attack Iran if I seen questions put to them by bush which they refused to answer or tried to evade. This would indicate to me they had something sinister to hide.

As it stands it looks like Bush is afraid to engage in a public dialogue. Surely Bush has more mud to throw at Iran, right? If Bush could ask the right questions and Ahmadinejad was unable to answer he would gain a lot of public support, however if Ahmadinejad was able to answer all questions and pose some that Bush couldn't answer, Bush would lose even more support. It looks like the annalists in the Whitehouse reckon a public exchange would be more damaging to Bush rather than Ahmadinejad.

Why not ask Ahmadinejad to clarify his position on wiping Israel off the map, or is it easier simply to misquote him and demonise him without giving him a chance to respond. As I think we all know now that was a deliberate misquote and he was actually talking about a regime change in Israel and America. He wanted new governments in both states which were less hostile and with whom he could deal with. This got translated into wiping them of the map.

I would really like to see an exchange of open letters between the two, each letter published in the media, so I can get both sides of the story and not just Whitehouse line which they want us all to believe. The only people who fear open dialogue is the people with something to hide. Ahmadinejad has offered to start this process and Bush has refused the offer. It’s not like Bush can’t reply with a string of complaints of his own. Iran isn’t exactly freedom central and if someone is afraid to engage with such an obviously easy target to undermine then it has me worried about why they wont engage.

The letters would be a public support magnet for whoever is seen to answer the questions better. Dodgy dossiers, shaky intelligence and lies wont convince me. British and American propaganda doesn’t really have a great track record of been remotely close to the truth. Support of this propaganda with Ahmadinejad evading questions put to him would be more convincing.

* just to add, this is not the first attempt by Iran to engage with the U.S. An earlier attempt at a deal with America was dismissed too. I had referenced this earlier attempt before but lost the link and as I'm sure I would be asked to back it up I didn't mention it above however Coinsidentally I've just read an artical today which makes reference to the earlier attempt at a deal which would have seen Iran recognise the state of Israel and also allow full international inspections of Irans facilites. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm
It looks more and more like America is the one refusing to accept anything short of an all out attack leaving them the major power in the region.

Manic Moran

We already have public fora for this sort of thing, the UN and the media as a whole. There is no practical difference if the US makes its statements in New York, to CNN or in a letter which is CC'd to CNN.

The US feels it has no more questions to ask: They've been asked, and the answers they've gotten, well, that have been bothered with, are publicly acknowledged by the US (amongst some others) as being insufficient. The IAEA certainly doesn't seem to be happy with Iran's actions. It's Iran, not the US that stopped co-operating with the IAEA two months ago. From CNN today: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/25/iran.nukes/index.html "Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif's statement came the day after the International Atomic Energy Agency pleaded with Iran to continue talks with European nations that want to offer it incentives in exchange for ending its nuclear-enrichment program." To have the UN body -pleading- with Iran doesn't sound like the US is at fault.

Just looking at this month, May 11, the US says it will stop pushing the UN security council to allow continued negotiations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4760169.stm

One week later "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed a possible European offer of incentives to induce Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4989376.stm

So far, it seems that Iran has been doing a better job at refusing offers than the US has. At least the latest talks continue, and the US has said that it supports the international involvement in preference to a direct Iran/US dialogue.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Sorry, I rushed that last edit in my last post to get it in before boards went to sleep at 3am.

My main point is that Iran has already offered (in 2003) to recognise Israels 1967 boarders, to cut off support for hamass and to allow full inspections of any facility the IAEA wanted to inspect.

These consessions were rejected by the U.S. at the time and have since been pushing to isolate Iran and lay the blame on Iran for blocking any attempt at a resolution. As far as I read it, it looks like the U.S. doesn't want any resolution which would leave Iran with any influence in the region, instead they want to leave the way open for an american dominated agenda in the middle east.
why does the U.S. not want direct talks with Iran. It's obvious both countries want to be the major player in the region after the fall of Iraq. Iran are willing to be equal powers in the region where America sees an opportunity for absolute power and to be the single dominant influence in the region.

RedPlanet

No surprise that Manic Moran would run to the defense of Bush.

The Comedy Show with Jon Stewart did a good parody of this affair.
Pity i can't find the clip on youtube.
But it went like this:

After reading excerpts of the Iranian President's letter Jon Stewart posed the Q what sort of reply we might expect from GWB.
Cut to a clip of one of the "Founding Fathers", quill in hand, carefully and thoughtfully scribing a well written letter of reflection, trying to bridge the divide between these 2 nations.
But the next clip was from some B movie that showed a group of children dressed in BaseBall uniforms, one of them shouting down the other side like a spoilt child, taking the ball and going home.

That of course, is the response of the Bush administration. Sure you can hardly expect statemanship from that crowd.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

The US feels it has no more questions to ask: They've been asked, and the answers they've gotten, well, that have been bothered with, are publicly acknowledged by the US (amongst some others) as being insufficient.

Sound familiar?

Like when Saddam offered the UN full access to whatever it wanted so the US wouldn't invade, and the US' response was that this was insufficient?

The IAEA certainly doesn't seem to be happy with Iran's actions.

The IAEA isn't happy that Iran isn't co-operating with them, indeed. However, one must ask why Iran isn't co-operating with them and the answer is simple. Iran stopped co-operating when the other nations in this game also stopped living up to their responsibilities.

Iran siged a treaty that gives it the express right to refine. The US, many EU nations, and others unilaterally decided that this was not acceptable and started moves to make Iran stop once it became clear Iran wasn't interested in negotiating a cessation.

Iran's stance on this has been clear from teh start - if other nations will not allow it to excercise its rights under the IAEA-centred treaties it has signed, why should it in turn still honour its agreements under the same treaties.

It has stated repeatedly it wants the stuff for peaceful research, and yet the US' basic stance is that Iran will not give these assurances. You can argue that they are empty assurances all you like (and you're possibly right) but thats different to the claims fo the US which is that assurances aren't being given at all.

Iran has stated it is willing to give the IAEA all the access it is entitled to under the treaties, and even consider negotiating for allowing more access, but only when the other players start honouring their side of the same treaty.

It's Iran, not the US that stopped co-operating with the IAEA two months ago.

When the US started threatening taking this to the security council, or indeed when it said that it would not accept any solution that didn't involve a complete cessation, or when it said that cessation was a prerequisite for any negotiations, it was already acting in defiance of the very treaty it is saying that Iran must honour by cooperating with the IAEA.

So yes, Iran stopped co-operating, but was not the first to ignore the actual treaty that requires such cooperation in the first place

To have the UN body -pleading- with Iran doesn't sound like the US is at fault.

Does it not? I would have said that after the events in Iraq, the IAEA is well aware that right or wrong the US will not back down on its "what we say is more important than any international body" stance, and so the only road to a better outcome is for Iran to capitulate.

Pragmatism is not the same as implying culpability.

So far, it seems that Iran has been doing a better job at refusing offers than the US has.

All of those offers have been unacceptable. Iran does not want to be sufficient on a foreign nation for its processed ore - which is understandable when it has no reason to become so, having signed a treaty that allows it to carry out refinement as long as it is willing to meet certain inspection standards, etc. Iran wants to be allowed to live up to that treaty, not be offered some sop to permanently give up the very same rights.

No matter who Iran signs a "you can supply us" deal with, that deal will always be contingent on Iran not p1ssing their supplier off in some other way. Just as the US goes on about being held hostage for foreign oil, Iran would effectively be held hostage for foreign processed uranium.

So what they are being asked to do is to give up self-sufficiency that they are entitled to by treaty, and exchange it for a reliance on continued good relations with a foreign power which could be revoked at any point given how said powers are the same peopel currently showing disdain for the conditions of an established treaty.

This is ultimately the problem....while the US, EU etc. all want us to fully focus on the possibility that Iran wants this facility to produce weapons. Even if that is true, it is still more correct to say that Iran wants this facility to produce generating capacity and weapons.

Iran is entitled by treaty to refine for generation. Iran is willing to allow the IAEA inspectors in to make sure it is only refining for generation. The point where the line should be drawn is where there is a solid case to be made to suggest that Iran is going beyond this point. Otherwise, we're in the same boat as before, where we all knew Saddam wanted WMDs, and the US-led media assault convinced enough people that this was equivalent to meaning that he was a clear and present danger, was actively trying to acquire WMDs and may indeed already have had them.

We apparently haven't learned our lesson yet, as here we are again believing that a want we don't question means something more than just that. Who needs proof, right?

jc

johnthesavage

Nobody threatened military action against Brazil when it refused access to IAEA inspectors a few years ago. In fact, Brazil enriched uranium for the first time just a few weeks ago, having since agreed to international inspections.

The difference, of course, is that Bush did not name Brazil in his "Axis of Evil"...