Ahmadinejad to Obama: Get Lost!
Has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slapped the outreached palm of President Barack Obama, who offered a cautious hand of cooperation to the Islamic Republic?
In his inauguration speech on Jan. 20, Obama said:
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
In his al-Arabiya interview Monday, broadcast throughout the Middle East Tuesday, Obama said:
I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.
In a speech in Kermanshah on Wednesday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad gave Obama his reply:
We welcome change provided the change is fundamental and in the right direction. If you talk of change in policies, withdraw your forces from Afghanistan. If you say change in policies, then halt your support to the uncultivated and rootless, forged, phony, killers of women and children Zionists and allow the Palestinian nation to determine its own destiny.
Ahmadinejad went on to demand that Americans "apologize” to Iranians and compensate them for the “murderous crimes” the U.S. has committed against Iran. He specifically referred to the CIA-backed overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, U.S. support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88 and the downing of an Iranian civilian plane and killing of 290 passengers by a U.S. warship in 1988.
Ahmadinejad's aggressive tone was markedly different from the friendly letter of congratulations that Ahmadinejad sent immediately after Obama's election Nov. 4:
I would like to offer my congratulations on your election by the majority of the American electorate. I hope you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy by putting the real interest of people as well as equity and justice ahead and above the insatiable demands of a selfish and unworthy minority.
What's going on with Ahmadinejad? Three things.
1. Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders are in a very, very tight spot because of Obama's election. John McCain would have suited them better. For 30 years, Tehran has had to deal with U.S. presidents who were largely hostile to Iran's government. That made it easy for Iranian leaders to hit the default button and continue their hostility in kind. Whatever Tehran's behavior, they reasoned, the U.S. would remain opposed to the Islamic Revolution. Suddenly, the U.S. has a president who may be extending a true olive branch, forcing Iranian leaders to choose whether to reciprocate or not. It's a moment of truth for Iran's regime, which is not easy to face. If they reject Obama's advances, Iran risks being tarred as the spoiler and targeted for greater international isolation--or worse-- as a result. Yet, if it reciprocates, Iran will have to start retreating on the radical ideology that underpins the regime—centered on its implacable opposition to Israel.
2. Ahmadinejad needs to be the tough guy. There's no doubt that Iranian leaders have prepared for the day when the U.S. may become more conciliatory. As with Nixon and China, De Klerk and Mandela, Rabin and Arafat, any Iranian leader who winds up having to deal with a long-time bitter adversary—in this case, the “Great Satan” no less—will have an advantage if he or his party are seen to be staunch hard-liners from the outset. The conservatives can carry the liberals, but the liberals will not easily carry the conservatives. Clearly nobody including Ahmadinejad knows how Obama's olive branch is going to play out. But knowing that he may have to respond to one, Ahmadinejad will do well to harden his persona—to enter negotiations from a position of strength both in terms of Americans and his own constituency.
3. Ahmadinejad is running for re-election. By no coincidence, Ahmadinejad's spokesman has announced that the president intends to run for another four-year term in June. For Ahmadinejad, that also means he has to be careful not to be outmaneuvered by his many rivals within the conservative camp. To some extent, you can take whatever Ahmadinejad says between now and June with a pinch of salt.
How Iran ultimately responds to Obama's olive branch is a complicated question nobody in Tehran much less Washington can answer right now. But in the 30 years since the Islamic Revolution, Iran's leaders have been far more pragmatic than they are generally given credit for being. The regime is interested in its own survival, Iran's national interests and radical ideology—in that order. If a deal with Obama means preserving the first two at the expense of the latter, don't be surprised if they take it. But expect a lot of rhetoric, at least on the Iranian side, until then.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
-
1
It is inconceivable that Obama's nuanced diplomacy could fail. He is such a huge improvement over Bush's foreign policy it is inevitable that Iran will dispatch its nuclear program and stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas. The fact that the Iranian regime considers America, not its presidents, the Great Satan doesn't matter. The fact that the Iranian regime is fundamentally opposed to Western society doesn't matter. The fact that no matter how nuanced or willing to talk you are, you can't force someone to listen or be persuaded doesn't matter.
•
Actually all of that does matter and seemed to escape the Obamaphiles who prematurely declared that his election would signal the end of ME strife and the resurrection of "diplomacy." It takes two to tango, but the Iranian regime frowns on dancing. The U.S. and what it stands for is greater than any president, and it's the U.S and what it stands for that the Iranian regime can't stand. About the best thing Obama's election accomplished is opening the eyes of some of the citizens of repressive regimes in the ME. (Maybe the U.S. isn't the evil, uncompromising, racist, imperialist nation it is portrayed to be in most of the ME media!) Unfortunately, you don't sit down at the table with the citizens, you sit down with government representatives. And the Iranian government, despite the claim in Scott's blog, will not compromise its ideology for national interest. If that were the case, Iran wouldn't purge "reformers" from its election candidates, imprison human rights activists, and shut down the BBC.
•
The only thing that's going to unclench Iran's fist is its own citizens, not nuance from the leader of the Great Satan. -
2
The apologies are important, the messenger is not. First, let's acknowledge that they are premised on undisputed facts and of great importance to Iranians everywhere. Second, why is Obama talking to the puppet instead of the ventriloquist? Obama is in the highest office in America, so his counterpart would be Khamenei, the SUPREME LEADER of Iran.
.
Finally, let's not accept this as a "door shutting" scenario. The sooner America makes friends with Iran, the sooner we can get an embassy in there to overthrow the regime again.
-
3
Interesting question persianadvocate - but how do you/we know that Obama has NOT spoken to Khamenei. Just a moot point.
-
4
Calling for Regime Change in Israel
Jerry Levin, Author and a former CNN Mid East Bureau Chief in Lebanon, was a full time volunteer with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron, when I first met him.
After Jerry showed me around town, I told Jerry that Hebron felt like hell.
Jerry replied, "You haven't seen anything until you see Gaza."
Jerry said that in June 2005...
On January 20, 2009, Jerry delivered the following statement to the Muslim Students Association at University of Alabama, Birmingham:
... I too favor a regime change in Israel, but not to an exclusivist authoritarian Islamic state some Hamas leaders seem to be intending. The one I favor and the one I hope our next President will tactfully encourage would encompass a change from the current Jewish state to a truly democratic pluralist equalitarian society whose polity would not be prey to any sectarian, ethnic, racial, or gender interests...
I too favor a regime change for Israel, because we know that the cause of freedom and justice for Palestine has never been honestly served by every one of Israel's brutal terrorizing governments, every one of them since Israel's inception; and something must be done about that. We know that the cause of freedom and justice for Palestine has never really…I repeat, never really has been served honestly by any European Government; and something also needs to be done about that...
And finally we know that the cause of freedom and justice for Palestine has never been served honestly by every American President since at least Lyndon Johnson; and something must be done about that too...
.........except for the scandalous demagogic extremist fringe in the Islamic world, who do not speak for most Palestinians or most of their supporters elsewhere in the world including Israel, what the Jewish state's human and civil rights critics mean when they talk about the destruction of Israel is not killing or driving out its Jews but simply the destruction, replacement, dissolution if you will, of the present Jewish State to be replaced by a sovereign political entity that embraces and is emblematic of unlimited constitutional democracy.
That's regime change.
And I support that, not that pretend democracy I mentioned earlier, which continues to masquerade with official United States collusion as the only democracy in the Middle East.
THE REST:
WAWA Blog
http://www.wearewideawake.org/January 30, 2009:
Calling for Regime Change in Israel:Tough Love and the Brutal Truth -
5
Luccee,
There is no indication that Obama or any representatives of the Obama administration have already contacted ANY high official of Iran's government. Scott's collection of excerpts above gives the appearance of a dialogue. However, no official communications have occurred. No one is 100% sure what happens behind the scenes, as we saw in the 80s when the President of the United States secretly sold arms to Iran's government.
.
In any case, my confusion stems from why the President of the United States would want to speak with anyone BUT the "SUPREME LEADER" of Iran. The media is complicit in making this mistake. TIME should take the lead in addressing it, I say. -
6
What I meant to say was that there have been no official two-way communications between Iran's regime and the Obama Administration. Ahmadinejad sent a letter of congratulations to Obama a short while ago. Obama has not yet replied.
-
7
This Saturday morning 07:10 a missile was shot from Gaza into Israel and exploded near the city of Ashkelon. I am sure you didn't know it.
So what do you recommend Israel should do now considering the following facts?· There is (unofficial) cease-fire – so why did they shoot.
· There is no occupation in Gaza
· There cannot be a blockade since Gaza has a land border with Egypt.
· Hamas refuses to even consider the existence of Israel along side a Palestinian state. This was the answer Hamas gave Tony Blair today.
· Hamas is a proxy of Iran who wishes to wipe Israel out of the map. -
8
It's interesting to view the following caricature (in the link).
It was created in 1956 (there was no Israeli occupation at that time)
The man with the mustache is Nasser the Egyptian president at that time and the man in the garden is Ben-Gurion the Israeli prime minister at that time.
I think that you can agree with me that the current situation is exactly the same and especially the “good” neighbors that shout only when Israel retaliate.
(Did I hear someone say Erdouan?)
Enjoy: -
9
persianadvocate,
Ahmadinejad is the public face of the Islamic Republic and it is him whom the President of the United States should address. It would be a violation of protocal to go directly to the Supreme Leader, just as Medelev is the President of Russia and Putin is pulling the strings.
I disagree with Scott's analysis. Ahmadinejad has always taken a harder line against the West in general, and the U.S. in particular than the Mullahs. I think his rivals will over a much more pragmatic approach to relations with the West.
However, the Iranian election will turn on domestic policy, not the U.S. For some reason, U.S. media can't understand that must elections deal with internal issues, not external threats. Palestinians did not vote in Hamas because of its stance on Israel. It voted in Hamas, in spite of it stance, because Hamas offered clean efficient government where Fatah over continuing its Mafia state.
The Iranian people like the American people. What they hate is the American government. It may be that Barack Obama can offer a more human face, and if he is conciliatory, attacking him by Iranian candidates would look silly.
Scott is right that the most important thing for the regime is survival, but that has nothing to do with the U.S. It's about providing prosperity to young Iranians, so they will care little about their lack of freedom or international relations. Besides, talk of regime change is folly, and any association with the U.S. is the kiss of death.
-
10
Fhm, I'm going to have to agree with Nick on this one. The man with the power is Ayatollah Khamanei, not the 'dinner jacket'.
.
Remember, Khamanei holds the actual title and rules along with the Guardian Council.
.
As for stridency, while Ahmadinejad may presenet a more public face of Iran's political extremism, the mullah's themselves are quite hardline in their own right. Remember, before Ahmadinejad, you had Khatami as the president, and yet even then, there were regular crackdowns on political dissidents, newspapers, journalists, domestic human rights champions, and student leaders.
.
As for HAMAS, while it did win on the 'clean party' vote if you will, its role as a leading 'resistance group' is also considered domestic policy for the Palesitnians. -
11
September 1970 is known as the Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود) in Arab history and sometimes is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash the autonomy of Palestinian organizations and restore his monarchy's rule over the country.[2] The violence resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[1] Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.
-
12
Jacob,
Don't get ahead of my message, which was strictly that Ahmadinejad is not representative of Iran's view. He can rant all he wants about Israel's woes to society, this does not make it Iranian policy. There is one man in charge of the policy, and his actions have shown that he is seeking to make Iran a sturdy ally of the American government. However, as Scott's blog points out: Iran's regime has to be the "tough guy". Here, Iran must save face by being seen as an equal partner in promoting similar interests.
.
Obama should be talking to Khamanei, but he also must apologize, on behalf of the US government, to the Iranian people for all that has been done against them in the course of history. Apologizing won't put our soldiers at risk and certainly won't cost us a dime.
.
If we want to stop a nuclear Iran, for whatever reason, the smartest option would be to engage in genuine, forward-moving negotiations. America and Iran: time to be friends... good friends. -
13
and then Obama must ask that Khamanei apologize, on behalf of the Iranian regime, to Americans for taking Americans hostage for 444 days.
.
These are the type of diplomatic gestures truly great countries could enjoy. -
14
Never mind what Ahmadinejad says or thinks. Iran aside, it is Afghanistan which can evolve into another Vietnam.
President Johnson ordered additional troops to Vietnam in the mid-1960s with the intention of putting a quick end to the war. But it went awry, culminating in the humiliating and hectic withdrawal in the early 1970s when Nixon was in the Oval Office. The US underestimated the peasants' support of the guerillas, and the indiscriminate massacres of the unarmed women and children not only failed to win the hearts of the people but instead incurred the wrath of the people all over the world (including many Americans themselves).
Isn't this a familiar scenario now in Afghanistan? More American soldiers will be deployed, more innocent civilians killed, more counter-attacks by Taliban…
The US is riding on a ferocious tiger, not able to dismount for fear of being devoured. Moreover, Afghanistan is a colossal sand-pit, whoever caught in it can only sink further.
Is there (or will there be) any amiable and tangible solution to this nightmare from the White House? Perhaps leaders can learn a lesson or two from Vietnam. IT IS STILL NOT TOO LATE.
(Tan Boon Tee) -
15
Tan Boon Tee – although it is tempting to compare situations, it's not always comparable. God is in the details.
Just to remind you the Taliban grew in Afghanistan and took it a hostage while launching attacks on the US from Afghanistan.
This was not the case with Vietnam.The case in Afghanistan was more comparable to what happened in Gaza that Hamas took the local population hostage for its aggression against Israel (this was said yesterday by Mahmoud Abbas the Palestinian PM – and I totally agree)
-
16
Ladak531, I appreciate your point.
To a considerable extent, did Vietcong not take the local Vietnamese hostage while fighting against the American GI?
No matter which perspective one is holding, the similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is becoming frightening closer. And precisely, this does not bode well for peace in the Middle East (or for that matter the world at large) in the next decade.
(Tan Boon Tee) -
17
What some Arabs think of Iran. A must read
http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=19399
-
18
Why give way to one over the other the USA needs to aply the change it talks about "Let the Muslims deal with their own" The United Muslim Nations (UMN) is watching the current direction in the world and a small twist can lead to destructions.
Al-Faarooq
http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/the-united-muslim-nations/
- TIME See the photographs behind the art of Norman Rockwell | http://su.pr/1EKACs - 2 hours ago
- TIME Looking for other things to do on Black Friday besides shopping? Some ideas from @techland | http://su.pr/2J92d3 - 3 hours ago
- TIME Holiday movies: Previewing this year's hot tickets | http://su.pr/1WatHR - 7 hours ago
Most Popular »
- UPDATE: Guess Who Came To Dinner?
- Time to panic again! Or, on second thought ...
- Chutzpah
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- In Italy, A Sex Scandal to Rival Berlusconi's
- Satyam Computer Fraud Grows to $2.5 Billion
- A Brief History of Black Friday
- Germany's Doubts About Afghanistan Grow After Revelations About Air Strike
- Workers of the World vs. China Inc.
- A Brief History of Pie
Quotes of the Day »
RSS
