Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to George W Bush proposing “new solutions for getting out of international problems and the current fragile situation of the world”, he said.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told Iran’s Isna news agency that once Mr Bush had received the letter, the contents would be made public.
It is significant because it is the first such high-level communication between Iran and America for almost three decades. As such it is a bold step by Mr Ahmadinejad, and the timing is key – just as the West is trying to persuade Russia and China to back tough action against Iran.
Mr Ahmadinejad is reinforcing the point that he is willing to negotiate with anyone, including the US president, to avoid conflict over the nuclear issue, our correspondent adds.
The US and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since Washington severed ties with Tehran after Iranian students occupied the US embassy there and took 52 Americans hostage in 1980.
I doubt if Rumsfeld, Cheney or Rove will allow Bush to accept any plan for bilateral negotiations. If you’re trying to impress the world with sword-rattling, traditional diplomacy is an unlikely strategy or tactic. For either side.
Shame Bush can’t read!
Could be a play for time also. I don’t know if you can stop them. You can’t just go in and bomb a breeder reactor or nuclear fuel stores. Who knows how far the fallout would extend. Much of the rest of the technology they can buy if damaged. I do know somebody needs to move into the 21st century and reevaluate foreign policy. The Western world started this crap after WWII backing any ruthless dictator that would insure the flow of cheap oil. It was no longer proper to bleed a colony dry, so they took that route. Sometimes your hens comes home to roost.
That the Bush administration is going to war with Iran is no-brainer. The only question still up in the air is whether the current president in office will use conventional weapons or nuclear ones to change the regime in Iran. My guess is that the Armed Forces are not equipped with enough man power and that a conscription is a hard sell. But how to use nukes in a world that opposes them? Well, the only way I see is to use them only in a counter-attack of an offensive nuclear weapons. The tens of thousands of killed innocent people will drive an emotional train of hatred toward the “enemy”. People will cry out for revenge. With the people’s backing, a president would be “justified” in returning a verdict “mandated” by the people. So, a nuclear weapon going off in either America or its satellite country, Israel, would result in the necessary pretext for nuking. With 9/11 we got a war with Afganistan and Iraq. With a new 911N (9/11 Nuke) America could conceivably justify an all outward extinction of all its perceived enemies. The arsenal of WMDs in the hands of the U.S. would be shared with axis of evils in the worst way. BOMBS AWAY! [Insert evil laugh here a la Dr. Evil].
Rightly or wrongly, there are protocols to be followed. Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and thumbed his nose at the rest of the world. One on one talks with Bush would lend legitimacy to his regime, which is not a desirable outcome. I’m not defending the protocols, but would note that they’re nothing new; George Washington refused to meet with (I think) British General Howe because Howe addressed Washington as Mister Washington and not General Washington. Oneupmanship is important in diplomacy.
#5. “Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and thumbed his nose at the rest of the world.”
Bush has called for the destruction of Iraq, Iran and Korea (the axis of evil) and flipped his finger at the rest of the world (unilateralism ring a bell?).
People can always see outwardly easily. Seeing inwardly is a skill not attained by most.
When’s he going to have direct meetings with Israel?
If Iran is willing to negotiate its only to delay and bide time until they have a working weapon. It will then be very hard to attack when Iran has Europe and the middle east in its sights. The Iranian president is a madman, he hates the west and all thing not muslim. He is a trapdoor spider just waiting for “we never learn our lesson” Europeans and American peace niks to come by, then he pops out and kills.
So let me get this straight? They violate nuclear policy that the UN put down, now they want to talk to the US? Kinda reminds me of the illegal aliens that want to change things: we’re here illegally and now we want .
…but then again, it MUST be President Bush’s fault for taking the side of the UN… oh wait…isn’t EVERYTHING Bush’s fault?
#13 — isn’t about time to come up with a new copout on discussion? Identifying everyone who disagrees with your stereotypes as behaving stereotypically is so — Reagan.
True — you can skip over issues like, say, a frozen cow turd cast over ice; but, sooner or later something like reality catches up to your smugness — the turd melts and the smell of corruption still leaks out from the politicians you support. Whether that support be active or passive.
Even your imitators [12] are becoming boring.
13: No, just a front man to impliment the neocon agenda. A front man doesn’t need to be smart. Only able to follow instructions. Problem is the neocons theories appear to be causing more problems than they solve and even other Republicans are fed up with the results. And yet, on Bush forges, oblivious to the damage he’s causing to the country.
Tell me, Paul. What do you think of Bush’s choice for the CIA? One of the functions of the CIA is to provide other views on intel than the president gets from the military. So how is that supposed to work when the CIA head is so tied to the military? Of course, from Bush’s point of view, that’s exactly what he wants. Rather than listen to opinions counter to what he wants, put in someone who wants to tell him what he wants to hear which is the push ahead with military options.
Paul, we clearly disagree on what’s happening in the world. I interpret all of the things I read one way, you another. Others write blog entries or newspaper columns putting the pieces together one way or another in ways with which you may agree or disagree. The key is to look closely at every piece. Some will be bullshit, lies, distortions, etc. Discard those. But after a number of years and after multiple people (many former and still supporters) who’ve had direct contact with Bush, Cheney and Co. coming out saying the same things, those are the pieces you have to take notice of. By the way, just so I’m clear, I’m talking about everything that’s gone on since Bush was elected, not this one religious thing with is just one of the pieces. Perhaps the armagedon thing is all just coincidence and crap, but if it isn’t, I hope you are willing to examine it rather than toss it out of hand because you don’t like the particular sources I happened to pick after only a few minutes looking.
You perhaps approve of the direction Bush, neocons and the religious right want to take the country, I don’t. It seems a growning number of Bush’s fellow Republicans don’t either which is why he hasn’t been able to implement everything he and his people want.
Perhaps Bush is a saint and is right about everything. I don’t think so. History will tell which was right.
>functions of the CIA is to provide other views on intel than the president >gets from the military.
It doesn’t stand for Central Institute of Arguing. They’re about gathering intelligence.
I see nothing wrong with direct talks. Of course they could be a facade while Iran moves along in it’s nuke program. But the best way to work out problems if they can ever be worked out is the parties must talk, not through media sound bytes, but face to face.
As to the President of Irans threats, he knows, and we know that he knows and he knows that we know, that if he ever attempted to take out Isreal, they wouldn’t leave a building standing in Iran. They are bothered by polictical correctness or nicities, they have had 58 years of having to basically stand up for themselves, and they have nuke weapons and the means to deliver them, and unlike us or the EU, the WILL to deliver them.
Hell, this might be a good time to talk to Castro as well. The Cuban exiles have had there way for way to long. Ol’Fidel is going to outlive all of them anyway. We could turn Cuba into another communist paradise, like China. Businesses could start sending their outsourcing to Cuba, soooo much closer than India.
rwilliams254 >> So let me get this straight? They violate nuclear policy that the UN put down, now they want to talk to the US?
Pakistan and India all have violated Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but we talk with them and the Bush administration has bascially green-lighted the behavior. Heck, they’ve even been negotiating with North Korea over nukes!
So why not talk with Iran when they make an offer to do so?
By the way, what violation of the law by Iran would allow America to legally bomb them?
(This is a serious question. I’m really unclear how opting-out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can be interpreted as an imminent threat to America.)
I’ll say it again:
It is absolutely NUTS to take us to brink of war without talking first.
> if he ever attempted to take out Isreal, they wouldn’t leave a building standing in Iran.
He also said that he doesn’t care about an Israeli revenge attack because they can only hit par tof the Muslim world while they can take out all of ISrael.
Iran’s letter says that liberal democracy is a failure. I wonder if the agreed deal will be no nukes, and Bush becomes dictator?
it’s true AB CD that all of Isreal could be taken out easily enough, it’s a small area. But it would also take out Gaza, the west bank and parts of Syria and Lebanon as well.
The point being that probably before the Iranian bombs even got to Isreal most of Iran would be a large bomb crater. Isreal is on a constant state of alert, they would know the minute the bombs left Iran and retaliate immediatly.
If I was a goverment in the area of Isreal I would be trying to make sure Iran never does what it says. The fallout would be devestating to all the countries I mentioned above plus Jordan and possibly Egypt.
It makes sense to talk as much as possible.
You missed my point joshua. Iran doesn’t care if they are destroyed by Israel. They’re willing to trade Israel for a small part of the Muslim world.
Ahamdenijad’s letter tries to make a case for elimnating Israel, saying it makes no sense for it to have been created.
Paul, reread #18. I already did.