Iran's Letter

Iran has sent an 18 page letter directly to the US. 

The letter is the first publicly announced personal communication from an Iranian premier to a U.S. president since Washington-Tehran ties were broken after the 1979 Islamic revolution, a former presidential official said.

...“In this letter, he has given an analysis of the current world situation, of the root of existing problems and of new ways of getting out of the current delicate situation in the world..."

This is a diplomatic bombshell.

I've said this before.  Iran's rhetoric about Israel isn't about Israel.  Iran wants direct negotiations with the US. 

We have a choice.

Negotiate directly and work with a solution, or continue this insane path toward war.   

But Iran wants a few things.  They might include pressure upon Pakistan to allow for a pipe through to India (Iran and India have had similar geopolitical interests);  some assurance that we won't be belligerent.  And some ways to develop an alternative energy plan that frees itself from oil dependency.  Use just a little systems theory and you'll understand that what Iran wants is attention. 

This means that Iran probably won't bomb anyone.  In fact, bombing anyone is an expensive and insane proposition.  Threats are far more effective and useful.   Iran is uniting people on the home front, because the threats seem defensive there; and they make sure we're listening.  They may continue to be aggressive.  I don't think they will do much. 

Ironically, Iran did the humane thing by reaching out to George Bush.  It demonstrates that Iran may not want to be an enemy.  I wonder what else they are seeking.  But with this letter, they have changed the terms of the debate, forcing Washington to confront Iran directly with diplomacy. 

It was a clever move on Iran's part.  "Let's talk."  Here is some commentary: 

US threats are not seen as being directed against Iran’s government but against Iranians in general. The same is true of US sanctions which affect all aspects of ordinary Iranians’ lives. No one in Iran can purchase a novel from amazon.com because Iran is excluded from the list of countries where people can purchase books electronically.

Second, the general public does not consider the nuclear issue to be of vital importance. Nuclear technology will do little for the average Iranian – it cannot create more jobs for a country that needs 1m jobs annually, it cannot change the chronic low efficiency, productivity and effectiveness of the economy and management, and it will do nothing to improve Iran’s commercial ties with the rest of the world.

Third, much of Iran’s political elite does not seem ready to engage in a risky undertaking that might jeopardise the very existence of the Islamic government. Iran has a track record of rational action over the past 27 years in a turbulent region.

Comments

[Caelius Spinator]

I would reserve judgment until I see a copy of this letter, but from the quotes I've seen, this letter is a poor attempt to argue for direct negotiations. I fear it may be intended to inflame tensions:

Would you close a letter to President Bush like this if you were the President of Iran and were trying to be conciliatory?

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God.

"My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'"

I mean if there had to be a zinger like that at the end, why not "Think carefully, Mr. President, what would Isa (PBUH) do?"

[David Loving]

I'd take them up on it.

[dkp]

i read the letter, or at least the translation of the letter available through le monde. while it does ramble, it also sounds like a letter written in classical islamic style, making points by asking questions, and by stringing questions together, which is a very different style of 'logic' from that which europeans and north americans privelege.

the letter itself struck me as not particularly threatening . . . indeed, as i read it, i kept looking for threatening language. despite its penchant for rambling, i think that old john wilkins in on point here: the letter (assuming the veracity of the le monde trans.) is simply an opening to dialogue, no matter how oblique.

if geo. bush wanted to, he could spin this very well, and in such a way that would actually decrease tensions. he could criticize the letter while calling it a start, or he could respond in kind. maybe m. albright has the right idea when she calls for 'secret talks' between u.s.a. and iran.

but from the latest headlines, bush doesn't want to spin it well. he wants to spin it in a way that will "rally his [ever-shrinking] base." lord help us all.

dkp

[Art Deco]

But Iran wants a few things. They might include pressure upon Pakistan to allow for a pipe through to India (Iran and India have had similar geopolitical interests); some assurance that we won't be belligerent. And some ways to develop an alternative energy plan that frees itself from oil dependency. Use just a little systems theory and you'll understand that what Iran wants is attention.

No I don't understand.

What is notable about your post is the number of declarative sentances indicating an absence of any sense of uncertainty either about what you read or how to parse it. People who have spent their lives studying the intersection of political affairs and military force come to divergent conclusions about a range of issues, our intelligence agencies have difficulty answering reliably some fairly discrete questions, and the number of Foreign Service officers conversant in Farsi can (one suspects, as it was the case in 1979) be counted on one's fingers.

You propose to take time off from writing your sermons to explain it all for them.

[Caelius Spinator]

Mea culpa, looking at the translation in Le Monde, it appears that the tack I proposed was indeed the tack. But I still can't shake the feeling that this wasn't a peace overture.

[John Wilkins]

Art Deco, I wonder if my forays into political expertise are upsetting to you. I'm just a parish priest, but I have little time for punditry. I don't believe most talking heads about many issues. Political scientists may have a broader range of knowledge, but I'm not shy about challenging them. I also spent two years in diplomatic environments, and found they had a wide range of skills sets. In fact, it is precisely because there are few foreign service people who speak farsi I distrust the quality of our decisions.

I don't think we even have many people who can understand what is openly going on in Iran.

Art, please note that this is a blog, and not a research paper.

I am open to the government hiring me for any work, and I know some talented scholars who are fluent in farsi, and am within two degrees of people in Indian intelligence. Who cares, though?

[Art Deco]

Art Deco, I wonder if my forays into political expertise are upsetting to you.

No, not especially.

I'm just a parish priest,

I know.

I don't believe most talking heads about many issues.

I would wager most of their stated views are derivative.

Political scientists may have a broader range of knowledge, but I'm not shy about challenging them.

Professional and intellectual subcultures may be hobbled in their understanding by certain habits of mind, 'tis true.

I also spent two years in diplomatic environments, and found they had a wide range of skills sets. In fact, it is precisely because there are few foreign service people who speak farsi I distrust the quality of our decisions.

They are likely to reciprocate that, and with some justice.

I don't think we even have many people who can understand what is openly going on in Iran.

That would not surprise me. A problem you do not mention is that the areal specialists we do have often have their expertise in the humanities and not in social research and have a reflexive antagonism to or contempt for state and society which renders them useless for public service. Martin Kramer has written on this topic.

Art, please note that this is a blog, and not a research paper.

I did not suggest you append reference footnotes to your commentary. I myself did not (though some people do provide links on occasion).

I am open to the government hiring me for any work

Does your Vestry, Bishop, or wife know this?

Some forms of expression are appropriate when we know what we are talking about, and some for when we have an idea or a sentiment about which we are talking.

[Ellen Thunite]

The Iranian President makes some excellent points in his letter.