About an hour ago, the White House web site released a startling video message from President Obama to all those who celebrate NowRuz, the (Persian) New Year.
Taking advantage of the single most important holiday season in Iran, the text of President Obama’s message emphasizes “respect” and signals “a new beginning” in America’s policy towards Iran.
The first subtle, yet critical change is the audience: Obama is speaking “directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” No more condescension in speaking only to Iran’s people, as if inviting them to rise up and change their system at America’s command. Such “interference,” whether by the Bush or Clinton Administrations, tended to stiffen resolve, close minds, circle wagons; In short, it backfired.
Obama sets the backdrop for his different approach by recognizing Nowruz as an integral part of Iran’s “great and celebrated culture,” and that despite the strains between Iran and the US, the holiday season reminds us “of the common humanity that binds us together.” In many ways, Nowruz in Iran is like the American holidays of Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, Easter, and Halloween — all compressed within two weeks. Friends, family, gifts, fun — “and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.”
“Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.“
It appears then that Dennis Ross is not controlling US Iran policy after all. No more (un-)”smart power” language of “carrots and sticks,” which Iranians view as fit for “donkeys.”
Obama isn’t forgetting the differences, but he is offering Iran a different path, a choice, one that doesn’t threaten Iran with being “obliterated,” invaded, or, “regime changed” if it doesn’t “cry Uncle” first. To the contrary, Obama calls upon Iran to live up to its own heritage:
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.
That “greatness is not the capacity to destroy,” but rather an “ability to build and create…” exchanges, partnerships, commerce, where “old divisions are overcome,” and where Iran, its neighbors, and the outside word can live in security and peace.
The road to that future “won’t be easy,” especially given “those who insist that we be defined by our differences” (whether that be “neocons” in Iran, Israel, or the US). Yet remarkably, Obama invokes the 13th Century Persian poet Sa’di as the sage on our potential common ground:
“The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.“
“With the coming of a new season, we’re reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.”
I anticipate with Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, that “[t]his historic message… will be the topic of conversation at every Norooz celebration in Iran and in America.”
Obama is doing something fundamentally different than Bush II, at the level of “strategic intent” to change the nature of relations between the US and Iran, to not just seek “tactical” cooperation on Iraq, Afghanistan, on oil shipping.
As a footnote, I am intrigued that much of Obama’s message to Iran follows suggestions that my own mentor, R.K. Ramazani, sketched in an early February oped on what “respect” means to Iran.
Less than a week later (on Feb. 9th), even Iran’s President Ahmadinejad also picked up on the respect theme:,
“The new US government… wants to create change and follow the path of talks. It’s very clear that true change should be fundamental and not tactical. It’s clear that the Iranian nation will welcome genuine changes. The Iranian nation is prepared to talk. However, these talks should be held in a fair atmosphere in which there is mutual respect.”
Make it so.
I am intrigued that much of Obaman’s message to Iran follows suggestions that my own mentor, R.K. Ramazani, sketched in an early February oped on what “respect” means to Iran.
Less than a week later (on Feb. 9th), Iran’s President Ahmadinejad also picked up on the respect theme
Yes, but what about Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin?
It wouldn’t be fun if Faux News didn’t try and rain on the parade.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509813,00.html
Gordon Brown made some very sensible remarks about countries needing to deploy nuclear power to deal with Global Warming a few days ago.
He is on a disarnament kick at the moment too, so all we have to do is make the Middle Eat a Nuclear Weapons free zone.
This is a good sign of what might be achieved when you take the garbage out.
I think Obama’s advisers attempt to apply Real-politique approach wich would lead a direct negotiation between the two concerned counterparts. I hope this engagement by Obama will be tranlated into concrete goals and will show the good side of american civilisation.
Hafid
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization..
Don’t you see the incredible, unbelievable arrogance of this kind of talk? Are the Iranians little children, who have to be told be “responsible”, or else? Are the Iranians the ones who lost their “rightful place in the community of nations” (as determined by the USA, of course), by “terror or arms”? Are the Iranians the ones who have to be told to be “peaceful”? If so, what countries did the Iranians attack? Gaza? Iraq? Afghanistan? How many nukes do the Iranians have? Were the airplanes, rockets and drones that killed so many innocents in Gaza, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, “made in Iran”? This is just the usual American arrogance, hidden in a load of typical Obama-platitudes (“the promise of a new day”….”the promise of opportunity for our children”….”progress for our communities”…”this precious humanity that we all share”…”the promise of a new beginning”….).
The video could be premised on the notion that differences with the Iranian regime are the result of misplaced hostility, not actual political differences. Or, it could be premised on the theory that by respectful talk, Iran, whatever its real intentions may be, will be forced by political considerations arising from the video to talk with us.
Either way, the real question is where any talks, if they occur, might lead. And that depends on the intentions of both the US and Iran. It is not entirely clear that there is a deal at the end of the road, no matter how soothingly we (or they) talk.
I hope Obama’s approach is doing the right thing. In any event, prudent people always hope for the best but must prepare for the worst. On the other hand, at this point, it is far too early to be waxing elegant and extravagantly about what a wonderful thing Obama has done. While I approve, I am also reminded of politicians who waxed elegant even after making deals and then proclaimed peace in our time.
What menno hart said. . Obama is good at grand symbolic gestures and making pretty speeches, but just as with the I/P conflict, you don’t have to look very hard to notice the condescension and arrogance. He did the same thing with his inaugural speech–two days after the Gaza War ended (for his benefit) and he alluded to terrorism. Not ours or that of our ally, but theirs.
That said, I hope there’s real substance behind this, but it’s pathetic how eagerly the Obamaphiles on the left try to see Obama as one of them. If he is, he has yet to show it.
The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities… “America cannot do this alone.
The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. People of Teheran – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.”
Der Fuehrer raises the rabble worldwide. I don’t think he wants troops from the Iranians. Rather he does want them but feels he cannot get them, but supplying his troops through Iran would be cool. This guy is going to be the death of us all.
I agree with menno hert,the underlying arrogance of Obama’s words is breathtaking.
It’s the US that the world fears and hopes will gain some semblance of mature ‘responsibility’. It’s the US that is spewing the detritus of war across the planet at the cost of millions of lives and untold billions of dollars – more than the rest of the world put together. It’s the US that’s leading the world in torture and violence -albeit under a cloak of self righteous pharisaical propaganda. Iran is a model of responsibility compared to the US!!!
Having said that, it’s possible that Obama’s video signals the US’s realization that its bully boy tactics in the ME need to be curtailed as it is desperately in need of Iran’s and other’s help now to climb out of the wicked violent quagmire it irresponsibly (and I would say illegally too), has dug itself into.
But pleeeease, less of the ‘we’re responsible and they’re not’ crap.
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.”
Oh, I’ll bet the Iranians are just charmed by this incredibly condescending, patronizing, paternalistic, utterly arrogant finger-wagging. Why, if someone spoke this way, I would just fall at their feet with gratitude……
NOT
You know, this sounds exactly like the kind of crap we used to hear from Bush and the Condi-bot.
“Change” you can gnash your teeth at.
Interesting comments here, though not what I anticipated…. I share N’s sense of the need for prudent caution — yes, such fine words need testing. Yet for the past 16 years or so, so often we’ve had unfortunate “wording” to cause meaningful dialogue to be stillborn.
However, I quite disagree with “Menno’s” (?) seemingly upside down interpretation of Obama’s words. How is it “arrogant” for the leader of the US to “want” the Islamic Republic of Iran to “take its rightful place in the community of nations?”
Sure beats calling Iran a member of the “axis of evil.” It’s a stunning sea change in attitude.
Ok, so there is a reference to “responsibilities” — and yes, the US can and will be accused of not living up to the same principles we might espouse….
But here again, there’s a hope for Iran to live up to its own best traditions and civilization… not exactly the stuff of “arrogance.”
I’ll of course be watching for comments from all Iran quarters; what I’m seeing thus far is widespread positive reactions.
I’m sorry, but here again we have a complete misinterpretation of what was a very arrogant speech continuing the double talk where Iran is accused of ‘threats’ it hasn’t made (or if it has made threats, the US and Israel have made far more overt threats), of willful expansion of power that it hasn’t demonstrated (and which the US and Israel have demonstrated in abundance), etc..
Please stop wanting so badly for Obama to be more enlightened. He isn’t, or if he is, then he’s too cowardly to face the political consequences of bucking the consensus of the political establishment. A change of direction is NOT going to happen unless we build a movement to bring it about.
In fact, the rhetoric leading up to the coming NIE and the leaked misinformation (as it appears to me) regarding the Israeli attack on Syria, and the scuttling of Freeman, make it all too clear that the next Iran NIE is going to open the door to war.
The report about the IDF chief being stiffed – that was a blatant right wing hit piece starring John Bolton. Means nothing.
I see Farideh Farhi came out with a commentary similar to my own. We’re both pleasantly “stunned” — for good reasons.
http://icga.blogspot.com/2009/03/and-happy-nowruz-to-you-too-mr-obama.html
Unlike me, she did anticipate that some might catch a potential “patronizing” air in the passage about Iran attaining its rightful place.
Yet she does echo my points about respect and not trying to divide people from government.
She also raises the important point that Obama
“did not try to drive a wedge between the leaders of Iran. He addressed them all and in one brilliant move put to rest all the useless chatter about who the Obama administration should talk to.” (e.g., moderates, pragmatists, etc.)
Scott, can you seriously not see how patronizing and condescending and colonial-power-esque that little lecture was? It is bloody insulting, and not all that different from the kind of condescending claptrap we heard periodically for eight years from the Bush regime.
Translation: (looks down nose, speaks as adult to recalcitrant child) “We really want to treat you like a grownup and allow you to sit with the big people, but we can’t let you join the grown-ups unless you start acting like a grown-up.” It’s insulting, especially coming from the President of the United States, which hasn’t acted like a member of the civilized world for quite some time now.
Actually Shirin, I really do not see the broad thrust of the message in that way. As you know, I was long a critic of the Bush/Cheney/Rice approach to Iran…. Condi Rice’s eight year long fretting about whether she could talk to Iran, “lest she grant their regime legitimacy” was at best, a “novel” approach to diplomacy.
Yet in many ways, the Clinton/Albright approach made many of the same mistakes — of thinking that you could speak to the Iranian people or permit imports of pistachios and carpets were enough (without speaking directly to the regime)
Perhaps I’m still misunderstanding you, yet it occurs to me that what might strike you and others as “patronizing” is the references to Iran being a “great civilization” and such.
This reminds me of a book Graham Fuller did years ago, entitled, “The Center of the Universe” (which I reviewed in Middle East Insight at the time)…. For all the book’s weaknesses, it did well highlight the Iranian self-conception of their proud history (some would say much too proud, even “arrogant”)….
Consider too the timing of the speech, this is Obama speaking to Iranians at just the moment they are likewise thinking fondly and deeply of their own traditions and culture…. In that context, I think Iranians will pardon Bush a bit for drawing attention to that pride (even beyond politics)
I will watch for detailed Iranian reactions to the speech — and post here. (I saw a brief reference to Ahmadinejad citing the speech favorable, but needing more actions…. Fair concern — for both sides, as “N” noted above)
It also occurs to me that my post and that of Helena’s about Obama Mideast policy might seem contradictory. I share Helena’s concern that the Obama Administration has lost interest, at a critical moment, in festering Gaza/Israel/Palestine conundrums.
And I too was unhappy to see Chas Freeman’s appointment lost — with no apparent public defense from the President.
All the more then my pleasant surprise that the Obama team has taken up a seriously different approach towards Iran. Yes, just words thus far, but important ones.
Scott H,
The case of Iran requires close watching. Obama could open up talks only to find they will serve only Iran’s interests. Or, Iran will up the ante and not talk. Or, perhaps something good will come out of all of this.
I would not, however, hold my breadth. The Iranian regime includes a very large number of religious fanatics who have less interest in resolving matters with us than even Bush had in resolving matters with them. We can only hope that Obama’s efforts somehow sideline the nuttier elements.
Without getting too far from my comment, I want to note in passing that Freeman’s writings which have surfaced suggest that he is an apologist for oppression. Note in particular his view that the suppression of the Bonus Army was proper and moral government behavior. That is entirely consistent with his support for the Saudis and the Chinese. And, it is perfectly consistent with his views with respect to Hamas. Which is to say, he is no friend of anyone interested in human rights.
“Oh, I’ll bet the Iranians are just charmed by this incredibly condescending, patronizing, paternalistic, utterly arrogant finger-wagging.
Shirin! Could not agree more!
Bravo.
Scott,
I am happy that Obama has reached out simultaneously to the Iranian people and leaders.
That is certainly a step in the right direction from Bush’s practice of talking only to the people. Most of the speech was quite good in my view, and I have no objection to it at all.
The part I object to, and in my view the part that puts a pall on the whole effort is the way he talks down to them here: “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.”
The tone of this is arrogant, patronizing, paternalistic, and deeply, ironically inappropriate given the United States’ rich history, particularly in the last eight years, of using terror and arms to achieve its global goals by destroying and killing as contrasted with Iran’s far more peaceful history over the last couple of centuries.
With credit to commenter Daredevil Don on Boomantribune.com, before it will be qualified for a place in the community of nations, the United States must be required to
– destroy its nuclear weapons and various delivery systems.
– force its client state in the Mid East, Israel, to ratify the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (Iran is a signatory, and has, according to all the evidence, not violated it). If Israel refuses, stop all military aid.
– apologize to Iran for enabling the Shah to overthrow a freely elected democratic leader in 1953, Mohammed Mossadeigh, replacing his regime with one known for its savage terror and torture.
– compensate Iran for the petroleum its oil giants stole from their fields.
– withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and promise to abide by the Geneva Conventions on peace and war.
– close Gitmo and all other offshore prisons and black sites immediately.
– be a good neighbor to all nations of the world who mean us no harm and who seek to live in peace and justice.
– allow other nations of the world to freely prosper from their own natural resources.
– live up to the values it insists that others uphold, as well as its own sacred documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
– respect the humanity of every individual on this planet.
When it does all this, then it can lecture Iran about acting with responsibility. Until that point, the U.S. should hold its tongue and control its arrogance.
It’s possible that both sides are right–that this does represent something hopeful, but is couched in the usual language of American arrogance. I suppose one could hardly expect otherwise.
But even from this relatively optimistic perspective, what matters is the followup.
Trita Parsi’s updated comments via hp:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/will-tehran-tango-obamas_b_177222.html?view=print
I’m a bit puzzled though that he closes with the “two-to-tango” line from neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz — from just over a year ago:
“The Iranian people could not have wished for a better Norooz greeting. Yet, Obama cannot dance this tango alone. The ball is in Iran’s court. Tehran should be careful not to miss this opportunity to transform US-Iran relations from destructive enmity to constructive partnership.”
***********
I share the concerns here that the good words & thoughts … need to be matched with good deeds. (to borrow myself from zoroastrian ethics)
and the apple cart can easily be upset from multiple directions….
No need to be puzzled. This is indeed the Neocon wolf in Neoliberal sheep’s clothing. The Iranians are not as foolish as the Americans. They’ll believe it when they see it :
Khamenei said a change of US “words” was not enough and added: “We will watch and we will judge [the new US administration] … You change, our behaviour will change.”
However, I quite disagree with “Menno’s” (?) seemingly upside down interpretation of Obama’s words. How is it “arrogant” for the leader of the US to “want” the Islamic Republic of Iran to “take its rightful place in the community of nations?”
What “community of nations”? There is only one “community of nations” in which the Iranians do not have their “rightful place”, and that is the “community of nations” who follow the American lead, or at least are obedient to US dictates. You can only become a member of that community if the Americans say so, and the criterion for membership is your obedience to them.
Iran, of course, already has its “rightful place” in the “community of nations”, the real one this time, and that is the “community of nations”, known as the United Nations, a community that every year votes almost unanimously for an UN General Assembly resolution called “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine”, which calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, and confirms the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination”. But that international community, real though it may be, has no power, and therefore is ignored.
I’m in agreement with Menno Hert, Donald Johnson and Dough.. There is a lot of arrogance in Obama’s speech. It remembers me of the speech he gave in Berlin. As if in the EU we were still on that cold war state of mind, where the US was our best friend and saver..
He first renewed friendship feelings with the EU, then in the next paragraph he said friends have mutual responsibilities.. and have to help each others.. blabblaa.. to sum up, he wants the EU to contribute more soldiers to the OTAN troops for Afghanistan..
Well, this was quite big : the US is a friend of us when she wants something from us. Bush hadn’t yet finished to piss about old EU and French cowards that Obama was already there trying to play the good pal parts because he wants us to participate in the US wars.. sh.. does he really think we are dumb at this point ?!! does he really think we want to get killed or to pour our taxes money in expansive weaponery to fight for the US ? Some nice talks won’t change our mind, at least not that of the general opinion.
What we want is facts, facts proving that the US attitude has really changed.
For the moment I haven’t see it. Neither in Palestine, nor in Afghnistan, nor in Pakistan. For Iraq, it’s too early to tell, whether the withdrawal will be complete or whether the US army will try to keep military bases there, on the pretext of “training the Iraqi”.
In the EU, we are just as much fed up by the US arrogance as in the rest of the world.
Saying ‘Happy New Year’ in Farsi is hardly ‘Ich Bin Ein Berliner’ – (I am a doughnut).
Iranian leaders are not impressed by Obama’s speech, it seems. From the Iranian news channel “Press TV”:
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution says the US has shown no sign of a real change in its hostile attitude toward the Iranian nation.
“They congratulate Iranians on the New Year but at the same time they accuse Iran of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear arms,” Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Saturday addressing masses of people in the holy city of Mashhad on the occasion of Nowruz (the Iranian New Year).
“They tell us to come and sit at the negotiating table. Under the slogan of change, they say let’s mend the ties. Where is the change? Clarify this for us.”
The Leader’s remarks came a day after US President Barack Obama addressed the Iranian nation and leaders in a videotaped message on the occasion of Nowruz.
In the message released on Friday, President Obama said he was ready to bring ‘new beginnings’ to the relations with the Islamic Republic, promising ‘constructive ties’ with the country.
The message echoed US old accusations against Iran, urging Tehran to abandon what Washington considers as Iran’s effort to sponsor terrorism throughout the world. “
continued here
Thanks everybody for a very entertaining thread. It is great to witness how low a popular US president can prostrate and mince words to praise something that has earned little to be praised by any modern human standard. A retrograd bunch of religious fanatics with a very colorful hate filled speech, flag burning, organized chanting, internally repressive, and devoid of any progressive rights for their females, gays, or minorities.
It is just fun to watch that regardless of how low he goes, it won’t work, like it didn’t work for the Europeans. Just bribe them with trade works, like the Britons and Germans do.
We can’t change history, what the British and the CIA did decades ago is done, what the Iranians did is done, and all that is part of who we and they are. Get over it. The lamb and the lion are on different sides and it won’t help either of them to pretend otherwise. If we find opportunistic alignment around Afghanistan, it will be that, short term opportunistic and then back to our adversarial positions. And in that context I know which side I am on. I also know which side the Shirins of the world are.
menno hert,
Thank you for posting the Iranian Press TV report.
This could all be posturing so that Iran can be seen in Iran to have the upper hand in talks. Or, it could be the Iranian position. Or, Iran could be upping the ante for any talks – in which case, there probably will not be any talks. In any event, it looks as if we shall know where things are going, if anywhere, pretty soon.
My best guess is that Iran has no interest in talking for any of a number of possible reasons.
even before anybody had a chance to say anything in Iran, Israel’s President Shimon Peres was out doing his level best to sabotage (sic) anything Obama had to say.
I’m trying to find the full text….
but it’s a doozy, vintage Bush/Cheney/Rice speak….
from what I’ve seen thus far, it appears that for every significant phase Obama got right, Peres turned upside down
But of course, the hasbarista line will be that see, there’s no dance partner on the Iranian side….
and so it goes
scott h,
Get real. The Israelis are not trying to sabotage Obama on Iran. They acted in coordination with Obama – releasing videos the very same day.
Get real — good idea. Welcome it. Do you happen to have the full text of Peres’ apparent broadcasts to Iran?
And your source on that “coordination” is? (Alas, the very idea that Israel & the US would coordinate messages to Iran would in itself be…. um… “problematic” to put it mildly)
Again, from what I’ve seen thus far, the content of Peres’s message, his reputed “blessing” (and the interview that apparently will be broadcast on Monday) are rather starkly in tension with Obama’s address….
Might have been coordination with Dennis Ross…. (ok, laugh — but there’s a point therein.)
The WhiteHouse Press Secretary surely didn’t seem like he knew of any “coordination” in this comment on March 20th:
Q Did Israel inform the administration that Shimon Peres would be giving out a similar Nowruz message to the Iranian people at the same time the Obama administration was?
MR. GIBBS: Did Israel inform us, or did —
Q Yes.
MR. GIBBS: (Clears his throat.) Excuse me. I’d have to check. I know we notified allies about our message last evening, but I do not know what specific things we might have gotten back from others.
from Khamenei’s web site, here’s a bit more of the translated quotes from his Mashhad address today. (the one emphasizing “actions” rather than words… I gather OSC/BBC will soon have up a full translation.)
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1067&Itemid=2
His Eminence touched upon the inauguration of the new US President and added: “They say they have extended their hands towards Iran. We believe if their iron hand is covered with a velvet glove, extending a hand toward us is insignificant and worthless.”
The Supreme Leader also added: “We don’t know who is making decisions in America – is it the President, the congress, or some unknown people who pull the strings? In any case, I would emphasize that the Iranian nation will not be influenced by its emotions and that it will make rational and calculated decisions about the issues it faces.”
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to Obama’s attempts at negotiation and his slogans of change, further adding: “If there is really any change, apart from a change in a small portion of your rhetoric, show it. Did you end your animosity against the Iranian nation? Did you release Iran’s frozen assets? Did you lift the sanctions against us? Did you give up slandering and broadcasting negative propaganda against our nation? Did you give up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?”
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution also stressed: “Change must not be accompanied by ulterior motives and verbiage. If you try to pursue the same goals and only change the policies, that constitutes a machination not a change. If you intend to bring about genuine change, you must show something in action. In any case, all the American officials as well as other people must know that the Iranian nation will not be deceived or intimidated.”
Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated: “All I want to say is that our nation will act the way it has during the past thirty years as long as the US government continues its usual aggressive methods, policies, measures, and attitudes. Our nation hates to be intimidated. Of course we do not have a record of the new US President and administration and, therefore, will judge them by their performance.”
The Washington Times today
Scott,
Why would it be problematic if Israel were to attempt itself or to coordinate with the US on efforts to improve relations with Iran? It seems to me that all involved would benefit from burying the hatchet. And, apart from religious issues that consume some just now in Iran, there is no inevitable source of conflict between Jews and Persians.
As for the content of what was said by Peres, if I recall correctly, it was available on The Jerusalem Post.
So far as coordination, such broadcasts are the subject of substantial work. They are not produced in a few hours. So, there was either a remarkable coincidence or there was coordination. Your pick.
Scott – you do not seem to be aware that Israel and Iran collaborated for the entire eight years of the Iraq/Iran war, and no doubt have had back corridor dialogue since then. The jews and Persians have more common interests than either of them do with the arabs. Both sides play chess expertly.
no doubt have had back corridor dialogue since then. The jews and Persians have more common interests than either of them do with the arabs. Both sides play chess expertly.
Two things here with Obama letter to Iran no one bring it here.
Firstly Obama’s letter sent on Nowroze calibrations which is a Persian New Year gesture not Islamic or related to Islam although the Mullah regime in Iran showing their strong believe in Islam and Islamic republic of Iran the name that bigbrother Khomeini give name to Iran.
Obama letter mentioned the Persian history and civilisation which also trying to seduce the Iranians to come forward and talk to the “Satan”.
Let not forgot this not the only incident that US or Iran trying to talk “Publically” although the “back corridor dialogue” is full opened with regard to Iraq there is no doubt that Iran played very major part from invasion to controlling and suppressed the Iraqi resistance to US occupations.
Let not forgot Ahmadinejad’s long letter (22pages) to Bush that no single word was leaked to the public.
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who is Iran’s highest spiritual, military and political authority
Israel’s President Shimon Peres was out doing his level best to sabotage (sic) anything Obama had to say.
Hah … to sabotage!!!
Well done, Salah!
It mieght be Obama in his letter telling Iranian “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.” i.e. to be in top ten of the countries of 2009 Quality of Life Index list?
194 countries ranked and rated to reveal the world’s best places to live in 2009
France: The world’s best country – 80 P0ints
And the Last in the list:
Let us go France….
Scott H. for your info the slogan “Death to Amrica” still been on Friday speech of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as usual for the last 30 yeras..
Bush Administration Contacts with Iran Direct and Indirect
Including more than 28 Separate Meetings with American officials of Ambassadorial Rank
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, for we are the masters of arms and terror and you cannot hope to compete with us in that realm, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, for we are the very face of death, we are the destroyers. Look at Iraq and at Gaza. Look at Hiroshima. Look at Nagasaki. It is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
I can agree with that. And I think it was very brave of Obama to make that confession. Why has he done so now? Has he taken in the ascendancy of Iran in the Middle East? Is he about to cashier the US’ symbionts in the Middle East oil patch?
Israel’s war on Gaza, and the complicity of the Arab world’s U.S.-backed monarchs and dictators in it, exposed the cavernous divide between them and the people they rule. To divert attention away from the ill-effects their own subservience has wrought, they believe redirecting this hostile energy onto Iran, fomenting historical Arab-Persian animosity, hyping sectarianism and scapegoating Shia Muslims will afford them some breathing room. Similar tactics are also evident in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Unsurprisingly, all three countries had recently shunned a two-day conference in Iran titled Palestine: Manifestation of Resistance, Gaza: Victim of Crime, which called for lifting the Gaza blockade — a blockade they all either tacitly or overtly support.
Perhaps Obama was not only speaking to the Iranians, but to all the subjects, often Shiite subjects of Sunni tyrants, in the region? Was he trying to hedge in the late, great tradition of those who financed his rise to power, against the event that the US-backed monarchs’ complicity, not only with the US/Israeli Axis against the Palestinians, but also against their own people finally brings down the dynastic houses in Arabia and the Gulf?
N…. alas, doesn’t appear to be coincidence, nor collaboration… Several of the links that originally appeared on Ha’aretz & JP about Peres disappeared…. I’ll post the Israeli press release today, which I found via BBC/SWB (which professes that Peres was “advised” by someone of Obama’s speech…. but doesn’t say who….)
When I get a moment to post the full text, Peres’ comments are substantially in tension with what Obama said. That is, Peres indeed was doing his level best (perhaps in collusion with Dennis Ross) to undermine what Obama said — by repeating all the old Bush-isms.
Roger Cohen’s oped in the IHT has it about right, on the serious problem afoot here…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/opinion/edcohen.php
namely, that for the US to reduce tensions with Iran, something is going to have to change in the tail wagging the dog recent history between the US and Israel.
Salah, yes, I’ve been there, heard it many times, the Margh Bar Amrika refrain…. it’s almost amusing to see how it’s done. Yes, there’s the ritual with the fits clenched and raised high… and sometimes on various high commemoration days, the ole’ enthusiasm might get a bused-in crowd a roaring…
But more often than not in recent years, the “death to America” chants have become rather hollow…. any American who goes to Iran will be quickly told it refers to America’s government policies, not to Americans…. and there have been occasions when the speaker has actually urged the chanters to ease off… or reconsider. (I recall Rafsanjani has several times criticized such “sloganeering”)
It even happened in the Mashhad speech. Note this passage from the Cohen oped:
***********************
Khamenei also quieted the crowd when it began its ritual “Death to America” chant and he said this: “We’re not emotional when it comes to our important matters. We make decisions by calculation.”
Scott,
Well, then the two speeches not entirely coincidental, on your view. And, the fact that the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz no longer carry content does not mean it was removed in order for such to be censored. I read the story retention policy for the online Post, which is explained pretty clearly.
On the other hand, Cohen is not much of a source regarding Iran, having recently dropped (from who knows where) into that country only, afterwords, having eaten his own words – in a published opinion column no less – regarding his description of life in today’s Iran. You should listen to his discussion with Iranian expatriates of Baha’i and Jewish background – which is why he backed down, it appears. Surely, you can do better than that.
My view remains that the two speeches compliment each other. Both hold out the olive branch. Both speak of improving relations. In my view, it is good for all involved to be open about their views and the Obama administration has not complained – which they would do if the message were really so off key.
In fact, Iran’s leadership says some pretty horrendous things that are often disconnected from reality, not to mention pretty scary. Noting that fact in an interview is not exactly news breaking stuff. As for Peres’ actual speech, it was pretty consistent with Obama’s message. That it came out on the day that Obama spoke strongly suggests coordination.