Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Ahmadinejad as W.'s Penpal
Ebadi warns of another Iraq


Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to W., in which he insisted on Iran's right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct scientific research on uranium enrichment. The NPT does in fact allow such research, but it is Bush administration policy to abrogate that right and stop even civilian research programs that might lead to the closing of the fuel cycle. It is another big leap from such an ability to making a bomb.

Ahmadinejad is a crank, and some of what he says is either badly translated or makes no sense in the original. Both are possible. Le Monde has a translation (pdf). Persian text here.

In any case, his letter to Bush holds no prospect of reducing tensions. It should be remembered that then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh angered Washington in the early 1950s by nationalizing Iranian petroleum. Eisenhower slapped sanctions on Iran and destroyed its economy. Washington at that time thought Mosaddegh was a pinko, though in fact he was a relatively conservative aristocrat. At the height of the crisis, Mosaddegh wrote a letter to Eisenhower, which was ignored. Ike had the CIA overthrow the elected, parliamentary government of Iran and install the Shah as a megalomaniacal dictator. So the tradition of letter-writing by Iranian leaders at times of tensions with Washington isn't replete with successes. Of course, the Iranians took revenge for the heavy-handed US interference with their form of government. They made an Islamic Revolution in 1978-79, and more recently elected Ahmadinejad. What Washington wouldn't do to have that nice Mr. Mosaddegh back.

Iranian peace Nobelist Shirin Ebadi spoke in Dearborn, and this is the text of her speech. Excerpt:


' The only beneficiaries of the war are people who sell arms. As a Muslim Iranian, I state here that I do criticize the government of Iran. But this does not mean that America has the right to invade Iran. And if America has not learned its lesson from Iraq and thinks of invading Iran, notwithstanding all of the criticisms we have of our government, we will defend our country to the last drop of our blood. And we will not let an alien soldier set foot on the land of Iran. If American speaks of globalization, this doesn't mean that the whole world is seen as one village and Bush is seen as the only sheriff of that village.'


Shimon Peres says he wants to remind Iran that it, too, can be wiped off the face of the earth, implying that Israel is capable of obliterating it with its nuclear arsenal. Peres also had the gall to blame Iran for provoking a nuclear arms race in the area!

There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as opposed to a still backward civilian energy research program. But if you were Iran's security establishment, what would you conclude you had to do after Peres's remarks?

The misquotation of Ahmadinejad, who actually quoted Khomeini as saying, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," now seems all by itself to be producing visions of nuclear war!

Ahmadinejad, however, has condemned mass killing of any sort and was not threatening military action (he is in any case not in command of the Iranian military). He compares his hope for an end to any Zionist regime in geographical Palestine to Khomeini's prediction that the Soviet Union would one day vanish. It wasn't a hope to kill Soviet citizens, but a desire for regime change. Ahmadinejad's hostility to Israel and his Holocaust denial and bigotry are beneath contempt. But he has not threatened military action, and has no unconventional weapons, and his words, however hurtful, do not constitute a legitimate basis for a war of aggression on Iran.

19 Comments:

At 1:49 PM, Blogger Desert JAG said...

Interesting juxtaposition you have of two Peace Nobelists, Shirin Ebadi and Shimon Perez. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems pretty clear which was the more deserving recipiant.

 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger R2K said...

Lol he sends a letter now. What a sick person. This is a good test though, we will see if the neocons really want to invade or not. Either they will bury the letter and move on with the violence, or they will accept it as some progress.

 
At 3:19 PM, Blogger Ran Talbott said...

I propose that we completely forget about negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program, and would like to hear your views on how the Iranians would respond to this strategy.

It's my belief that the monitoring program negotiated by the EU3 will provide us with weeks, or months, or warning of an Iranian attempt to enrich weapons-grade, rather than reactor-grade, uranium (evidence to the contrary, if any, would be appreciated).

I propose that the U.S. simply stake out a position along these lines (with some suitable polishing of language): "Even though we don't trust you, we'll respect your NPT rights as long as you stick to the inspection regimen. But if (and ONLY if) you cheat, we'll destroy your nuclear capability without further warning".

Period. Done. No haggling about meeting venues, the shape of the negotiating table, or what to do about all the other problems (real or imagined) we have with each other. Just get this single, life-and-death issue settled, and deal with the rest later.

Would Tehran go along with this approach? Or has all the posturing and sabre-rattling already poisoned the well?

 
At 6:22 PM, Blogger KingoftheDarbar said...

"Just give us your oil; save the pen and ink..."--Condi

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger John Koch said...

Ahmadinejad's letter is presumably a stilted defense of nuclear electrical plant development. W's likely response is, "So what? That's not the real issue."

Honestly, Ahmadinejad might have done everyone a great favor by amplifying what he means by "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” and “bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." This would settle whether JC or CH owes the other a crate of scotch.

Were Ahmadinejad to express a Persian equivalent of "peaceful co-existence" with Israel, how magnificent. But I doubt it.

 
At 6:51 PM, Blogger Richard said...

Full text of Ahmadinejad to Bush.

link

 
At 7:51 PM, Blogger drlemur said...

Two points I haven't seen raised elsewhere:

1. Given that the saber rattling is driving up the price of oil, aren't the Iranians (and other producers) actually making out like bandits because of the uncertainty? If they are fairly confident that the US cannot attack, there doesn't seem to be much reason they'd want to resolve the "crisis." Just wondering.

2. At some point doesn't our economic dependency on the Chinese central bank start to affect geopolitical decisions? China is pretty consistently against violations of national sovereignity (being invaded repeatedly for a few centuries will do that to you). If they simply hinted they would stop buying american dollars (financing our current account deficit) if the US attacked Iran, wouldn't that be potentially catastrophic for the US economy? It'd be bad for China, too, but it seems like they can call the shots if they'd like to.

Maybe I don't know anything about the macroeconomic relationship between the US & China, but at some point it seems like the administration's domestic stupidity is going to have foreign policy consequences.

 
At 8:47 PM, Blogger Coathangrrr said...

The scary thing about this letter,to me at least, is the appeal at the end for some sort of combined Christian-Islamic world theocracy. Perhaps I'm reading a bit into it, but that really is what it sounds like he is suggesting.

Other than that, the letter seems pretty well thought out and cogent. Of course, I expect the idea here is to grab the moral high ground from the US even more than before.

 
At 9:13 PM, Blogger CarlosT said...

Iran has been following the script that our actions dictated all the way back from the "Axis of Evil" speech. One of those nations, Iraq, had no WMD capability, one of them did. Which one got invaded?

One of the questions I have never seen answered is: if Iraq did have WMDs, then why were Rumsfeld and his crew so confident a small force could take Saddam's regime out? It seems to me that a smallish nuke used against a force the size that the US assembled would have disrupted the US effort, with mass casualties.

Against the US's conventional superiority, even after the drain of the Iraq war, Tehran has probably concluded that nuclear is the only deterrent that Washington will really respect.

 
At 10:42 PM, Blogger markfromireland said...

A commenter on my site alerted me to this from Rawstory. Even allowing for the source it seems well-nigh unbelievable:

The story deals with the transcripy of an interview with the NBC editorial board as released by the State Department. According to rawstory

"Rice also admitted she hadn't read the letter in an interview with the Associated Press editorial board. ....

#
Q I would love to know more about this letter from Ahmadinejad and what you think he is doing in trying to approach the White House so publicly at this time, and as a second issue, what you think the relationship is between him and the Ayatollah and the other clerics.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, I won't try to judge the motivations for the letter and I certainly don't know the ins and outs of internal Iranian politics. We choose to treat the Iranian Government as the Iranian Government and to respond accordingly.

We've gotten the letter. We've not had a chance to do our own translation and of course we'll do that, but an initial reading of the letter would suggest that there is nothing in it that addresses the major issues between the United States and the rest of the world and Iran on the other hand. So not concrete issues on the nuclear side or on any of the other issues that we face. It's very philosophical, I would say. But again, I think we want to take a harder look at it, look at the actual translation and get a better sense of what's there. But that's the initial reading."

Rawstory Link:

 
At 10:44 PM, Blogger hamesha: said...

Thank you Prof. Cole for another very important and timely post, the text of the letter, and the interesting historical comparison to Mossadegh's letter to Ike. On the lighter side of things, I have attempted a mini-satire of the letter in my blog: Rambling Lolita in Tehran.
Thanks as always.

 
At 10:51 PM, Blogger Matthias said...

I am baffled by how ferociously this letter is being dismissed by the White House and the media.

"Iran letter blasts Bush, democracy"

I don't know if whoever wrote this (AP or CNN) has read the same letter I have. One can agree or disagree with what has been written, but the letter raises conscious questions as to where things stand and what issues need to be addressed.

No matter how much mistrust may be there, there is someone reaching out to address and discuss the issues beyond saber rattling and oil business deals. Even anyone opposed to religious rhetoric can see that.

The broad dismissal by the administration and the media makes me question as to where the moral high ground really lies. We are the ones on the triggers of the bigger guns and so it is our moral duty to take the hand of anyone who reaches out and consciously address the questions that are being raised.

Even if no agreement can be found whatsoever and no matter how outrageous the claims may be, I think it goes without saying that I should be able to expect the content of this letter be challenged, analyzed and responded to point by point by my administration. Otherwise how can I trust them or be sure that my side really does have the moral high ground?

No response or broad dismissal is what a child or bully would do, not a society that thinks of itself of standing for reason, moral and freedom.

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger Alusizadeh said...

Dear Juan,

From a political and historical point of view, the most important development which has occurred in the world during the past days is undoubtedly the letter written by Iranian president Ahmadinajad to his US homologue, G.W. Bush. Notwithstanding its content, which will provide ground for all kinds of commentaries, this letter is noticeable at least for its symbolic value.
The French daily newspaper Le Monde has given a version of it, which is already claimed as authoritative even in the US (see : http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/) and Juan refers to it in his blog. It appears however that a scan of one version of the original document has been also published by the Wall Street Journal (see : http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsj-IranianPres_letter.pdf) and that, by comparison with this scanned document, Le Monde’s version proves to be incomplete (the … ) and on some places, incorrect (for instance, convey instead of convoy, aliments instead of ailments, p. 2 of the WSJ scanned doc.). Such a bad transcription does not serve the appreciation of the real significance of the letter: (see for instance this comment on www.lemonde.fr:
“Bach
09.05.06 | 16h46
C'est quoi cette lettre? C'est ce truc de huit pages qui a été envoyé??? Pas possible!? Je n'ai jamais vu autant de fautes d'anglais, ni quelque chose d'aussi fouillis, mal rédigé que ça! Est-ce possible, ou est-ce une mauvaise traduction, ou un faux? ("aliments" à la place de "ailments" par ex et d'autre fautes...) Merci d'avance au Monde de répondre à cette question! Aie aie, aie, n'empêche qu'on est mal barrés avec ces deux fanatiques religieux...

2 questions: How is it possible that such a serious newspaper as Le Monde could be so carefree in publishing a version of a document bearing such an historical significance?
How is it possible that most of the people, from the White House to CNN, decide to give authority to such an inaccurate version, when it has been possible to the WSJ to obtain and publish a document which obviously presents all the characters of authenticity? Why, if we trust CNN’s claim, the White House decided to give credence to Le Monde’s version?

Edouard Méténier

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger mink said...

One thing that people forget is that Peres was in charge of setting up the Israeli Nuclear in Dimona in the late 1950s. He was the Director General of the Defence Minstry under Ben Gurion, and was coordinating with the French, who supplied the technology.
The Bar-Zohar biography of Ben Gurion (in Hebrew) shows a picture of him and the French involved walking in Dimona, Peres with a big grin on his face.

 
At 11:37 PM, Blogger Abhinav Aima said...

What Would Jesus Do, Asks Ahmadinejad

Those Americans who have travelled in the Middle East have probably heard such accusations of hypocrisy levelled at the avowedly Christian Bush before...

These questions, of course, assume that Bush is a true Christian who wants to apply Christ's teachings in his policies, and not just another Old Testament thumper who rarely pays attention to the non-violent and charitable acts of Jesus...

Regarding this Iranian letter: What gives an Iranian Shiite the right to posit questions about the Christian morals of El Presidente Arbusto? Bush, for example, has never claimed to know right from wrong in Islam, and has never preached to Muslims regarding their own religion...

Guffaw! Ha ha ha ha ha...

 
At 1:16 AM, Blogger InplainviewMonitor said...

On Ahmadinejad's letter

Knowing the logic of neoconservative PR, the meaning of Ahmadinejad's letter can be decyphered as following.

Standard theme of the neoconservative PR is that Islam nees to be reformed because it is hijacked by the radical ideolges from Al-Queda and the Khomeinists.

In response, they get the Islamist tract which makes the distinction between what is supposed to be "true" Christianity - and its radical islamophobic version!

This way, Ahmadinejad apaprently escalates the ideological war yet again.
-- He adopts some of Mahathir's ideas on Muslim enlightenment and sets more exact ideological goals for anti-Western fighters.
-- He positions himself as a moderate compared to Al-Queda and clarifies why Al-Queda needs to be fought.
-- This way, he seeks to establish ideological links with the Arabs.
-- He goes on provoking the neocons to make more and more aggressive and Islamophobic moves to enforce his position.

 
At 8:12 AM, Blogger lucas said...

I was under the impression that by the end of the Mossadegh Oil nationalization crisis in the 50s, Iran's economy with out oil was approching the levels it was at before Oil nationalization.

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger Mitchell said...

CarlosT:

One of the questions I have never seen answered is: if Iraq did have WMDs, then why were Rumsfeld and his crew so confident a small force could take Saddam's regime out? It seems to me that a smallish nuke used against a force the size that the US assembled would have disrupted the US effort, with mass casualties.

There were two cases to consider (actually three, but we'll come to the third later). The first, that Iraq had WMD programs but no battle-ready WMDs. In which case, it really would have been a war of preemption. The second, that Iraq had a WMD ready to go and would use it on the battlefield. In that case, the USA would have retaliated in kind, or even with escalation. But despite your remarks, I think WMDs would have been of limited use on the battlefield anyway, except perhaps in an attack on CENTCOM HQ in Qatar.

The third case is WMD attack on the US homeland through special forces or terrorist proxies. And there is some evidence that this is what they were actually worried about. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, was apprehended in Pakistan at the home of a microbiologist, early in March 2003. It was just a week or two later that Bush finally gave a concrete deadline to Saddam (48 hours to get out of Iraq). The sequence of events is at least consistent with the idea that KSM embodied a threat which had to be neutralized before the invasion could go ahead.

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger Bob said...

Dr. Cole:
Information Clearing House has an article which suggests that the "Holocaust denial" charge is also the result of some seriously misleading translation, something which I think is supported by Ahmadinejad's letter. ICH quotes the Iranian press agency's translation of Ahmadinejad's 12/14/05 speech as "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime."

While this might indicate that Ahmadinejad doesn't believe the whole Holocaust story, he does seem willing to stipulate it.

Have you examined Ahmadinejad's statements concerning the Holocaust in the same detail as you have concerning the "wiping Israel off the map" nonsense? I'd like to know what you think.

(ICH article: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home