Skip to content

To: Mr. President From: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cc: Western liberals

May 9, 2006
by

The complete text of the recent letter from Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, to the U.S. president is now online. The 18-page letter is a rambling diatribe which makes me just that much more freaked that this guy wants to get his finger on his own personal “launch button.” (Sincerely: Lord, have mercy!)

Yet, already some are dismayed that the Bush Administration has rejected the letter, as if it were “an opening to dialogue” about the nuclear issue in Iran. (Seriously, just try to find the small paragraph alluding to the nuclear crisis in the letter, it’s work.)

However, the interesting thing is that, despite its bizarrely multitudinous “Mr. President” salutations, the letter seems much less meant for Bush’s consumption than that of “Mr. President’s” critics. With very few exceptions (e.g., Mahmoud’s declaration that liberal democracy is dead), the letter is a compendium of talking points that could have been lifted straight from the websites of MoveOn, Faithful America or Michael Moore.

So, here’s my open question: Does Ahmadinejad lift his “views” from the Bush haters or does Mahmoud actually think he can dupe the Leftists and centrists of the West into thinking he’s really not so bad…? Or that he’s sane…? A recent, darkly-humorous-yet-appalling little newsblip on this nutjob reminds us of why he’s neither.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. Tim C permalink
    May 10, 2006 8:19 pm

    Regarding your open question:

    “So, here’s my open question: Does Ahmadinejad lift his “views” from the Bush haters or does Mahmoud actually think he can dupe the Leftists and centrists of the West into thinking he’s really not so bad…?”

    Seemed to me like “C none of the above.” It was an 11th hour effort to move things away from UN security sanctions. And along with obvious criticisms of Bush (WMD, etc,)that “could have been lifted from MoveON” there was other nice things that could have been lifted from the Right (calling the UN

    And Time reports there were two letters not just one:

    But a second document, written by a top Iranian official and given to TIME just before Ahmadinejad’s letter was made public, offers a more concrete foundation for negotiations to resolve the nuclear impasse. In the two-page memorandum, intended for publication in the West, Hassan Rohani,representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator, defends Iran’s nuclear posture, decries American bullying, and puts forward a plan to remove the nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council and return it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, a long-standing Iranian goal.

    The letter also offers some specific Iranian starting points for negotiation. Rohani said Iran would “consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections,” and that it would also “address the question of preventing ‘break-out'” — or abandonement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Independent nuclear experts consulted by TIME said these proposals were “hopeful” signs.

    Ivo Dadler from the Brookings Institute made what to me was an interesting historical analogy:

    “Looks like Tehran did steal a page from Khrushchev’s playbook….At the height of the Cuban Missile Crises, Kennedy received two letters from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev — one conciliatory and open to compromise, the other blustery and full of threats and invectives. Kennedy chose to ignore the second, and responded to the first, opening the way to the peaceful resolution to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

    Bush should follow Kennedy’s example, and ignore the substance of the letter and focus on the fact that it represents the first official Iranian communication with an American president in 27 years. He should take the opportunity of this opening and offer to engage in unconditional talks with Tehran aimed at resolving all outstanding disputes, including the nuclear one, with an eye to normalizing diplomatic relations as soon as possible.

    Doing so could open the door to a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue. If diplomacy fails, the case for sanctions and other punitive steps would become that much stronger. And it would put the onus for resolving the budding crisis squarely back on Tehran, where it belongs.

  2. May 11, 2006 1:29 am

    The Moose makes another historical analogy:

    Our President is severely weakened and our enemies are emboldened. Yesterday, the Iranian tyrant issued a propaganda missive that was Hitlerian in its content and intent. His rant masqueraded as a diplomatic overture will no doubt cause some to welcome it as an extended olive branch. In the 1930’s, Hitler similarly attempted to encourage appeasement with hints of reconciliation.

    Good to have you back Tim!

  3. Timmy C permalink
    May 12, 2006 2:36 pm

    I saw Marshal Whtiman’s Hitler analogy too.

    Seems to me like wisdom would be learning from both Hitler and Khrushchev in our response, wouldn’t it? A healthily skeptical exploration of the offer in the 2nd Hassan Rohani letter…that if it falls through, as Daddler put it “would put the onus for resolving the budding crisis squarely back on Tehran, where it belongs.”

    Also (a non-rhetorical question) can you are anyone here explain me the wisdom of NOT directly negotiating with Iran?
    Or North Korea for that matter?

    I know that technically they are both “Axis of Evil” members but we’ve negotiated directly with plenty of evil or evil-ish countries and groups before: the Communist Era Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia and Sunni Insurgents in Iraq. Am I missing something?

    Tim

  4. Toayminator permalink
    May 25, 2006 2:23 pm

    Regarding Ahmadinejad’s co-called offer and negotiating with him….

    First, a side note- our government under the sure and steady guidance of bill clinton and the stunning naiveté of jimmy carter DID negotiate with North Korea. They believed every word of the North Koreans, and the North Koreans broke their word and developed nukes ANYway just as any sane person with a read on human nature would have recognized.

    Now, to Ahmadinejad-

    As David Limbaugh put it, “to suggest that this madman has legitimate grievances that can be resolved through a little schmoozing is shockingly naive.”

    They guy has stated over and over again that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How many times must he say it before you believe he means what he says?

    I’ve read no less then 4 commentators who believe the Ahmadinejad letter is one thing- a prelude to war.

    This is from Laura Mansfield:

    Islamic theology documents that no attack can be carried out in jihad without first offering the “unbelievers” the opportunity to “repent” and accept Islam. Only when that overture is rejected can an attack occur.

    Al-Qaida has repeatedly issued warnings prior to attacks, although the warning are never specific enough for the West to recognize the exact target or timing of the attack. However, the warning is made.

    The Quran documents that Allah even is required to issue such warnings. The following three verses from the Quran are representative of the many that do this.

    Surah 50, ayat (verse) 14 of the Quran says:

    The Companions of the Wood, and the People of Tubba’; each one (of them) rejected the messengers, and My warning was duly fulfilled (in them).

    Surah 41, ayat (verse) 13 of the Quran says:

    If they turn away, then say, “I am warning you of a disaster like the disaster that annihilated ‘Aad and Thamoud.”

    Surah 41, ayat (verse) 17 of the Quran says:

    As for Thamoud, we provided them with guidance, but they preferred blindness over guidance. Consequently, the disastrous and shameful retribution annihilated them, because of what they earned.

    Note in the letter below where Ahmadinejad says the following:

    The holy Quran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions 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).

    Mr. President, according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.

    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. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

    The gist is this: Iran’s president has just officially invited the United States to embrace Islam.

    This is not good.

    See also

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006_05.php

    Liberals are showing their true colors again for all to see. No amount of provocation is ever enough for them. We just need a little more sensitivity training.

    For more solid, unsanitized info on what Islam is really up to in the world, I recommend:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and

    http://www.Danielpipes.org

    MT

  5. Tim C permalink
    May 31, 2006 10:03 am

    Relating to this issue…

    “Also (a non-rhetorical question) can you are anyone here explain me the wisdom of NOT directly negotiating with Iran?”

    It seems that with conditions, the Bush Admin has decieded that it was worth a try to negotiate directly with Iran…

    “WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) – The United States, in a major policy shift toward Iran, said on Wednesday it would join European governments in talks with Tehran if it suspended its nuclear enrichment program.

    President George W. Bush said the United States was taking a “leadership position” to resolve the Iran nuclear dispute diplomatically, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed that the military option was still on the table.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: