Most of the Western media failed to report on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s annual, live Nowruz (Persian New Year) address yesterday in his hometown of Mashhad. Instead they took conventional snippets from his earlier pre-recorded message for state television. In doing so, the Western media have again missed important content and context regarding Khamenei’s approach to dealing with the United States and Iran’s geopolitics.
The critical point in Khamenei’s live address this year was his reiteration of last year’s ground-breaking offer:
“We [the Islamic Republic] have no history with the new [U.S.] administration and president. We reserve our judgment. If you change, our conduct will change as well.”
But, this year, Khamenei questioned Obama’s determination to change the core substance of America’s approach to the Islamic Republic and emphasized that Iran would not be swept up in Obama’s emotional but, from Khamenei’s perspective, substantively empty rhetoric of “change”. Khamenei said:
“I don’t know who the decision makers in the U.S. are –the President, Congress, others behind the scenes—but what I do know is that Iran has acted on the basis of logic…we do not act emotionally with regard to the issues important to us. We make decisions on the basis of calculations, rather than emotions.”
To be well understood, Khamenei’s live Nowruz address this year needs to be read in conjunction with his live Nowruz speech in Mashhad last year. Last year’s address came on the heels of President Obama’s attention-getting 2009 Nowruz video message, which had been released just a couple of days before. In that video message, Obama had directed his remarks to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” (actually referring to the country by its official name) and proclaimed that:
“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.” Even more importantly, Obama noted that “this process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”
Multiple Iranian sources, official and otherwise, have told us that Obama’s words were positively received in Tehran. In fact, Obama’s message directly prompted Khamenei’s offer two days later in his 2009 Mashhad speech: “You change, and we shall change as well.” On the day that Khamenei made this statement, we were attending a Middle East security conference in the region, at which one of the other participants was a former Iranian diplomat with considerable high-level experience in the Islamic Republic’s policymaking circles, who had effectively stepped out of public life following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s initial election in 2005. When Flynt read, from his Blackberry, an English translation of Khamenei’s pledge that if “you change, we will change as well”, our Iranian colleague’s eyes grew wide and he exclaimed, “This is already very positive!”
As we have written previously, during our recent trip to Tehran, our Iranian interlocutors underscored the significance of Khamenei’s declaration that if “you change, we will change as well”. In particular, our interlocutors emphasized that this statement represented a calculated and rapid response to Obama’s 2009 Nowruz message from the Islamic Republic’s highest level of authority. Some of our interlocutors pointed out that Khamenei’s formulation—which left it up to Obama to determine what “change” in American behavior or policy he was prepared to pursue—was deliberately crafted to maximize Obama’s room to maneuver.
Against this backdrop, Khamenei’s speech in Mashhad yesterday clearly reveals the depth of Iranian disappointment with the course of U.S. policy since last March. More specifically, the speech conveyed considerable anger about perceived American support for the domestic opposition that emerged following the Islamic Republic’s June 12, 2009 presidential election, continued U.S. involvement with violent separatist movements that continue to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, Obama’s failure to break with a 30-year history of American efforts to isolate, press, and undermine the Islamic Republic, and what Khamenei sees as American deceit.
Referring to Obama’s rhetoric about the Islamic Republic, Khamenei noted in his address yesterday that
“the United States says ‘Let’s forget the past, we want to negotiate with Iran…we are extending our hand.’ What kind of hand? If it is an iron hand concealed in a velvet glove, that has no positive meaning for Iran. [The United States] sends greetings for a holiday but at the same time accuses Iranians of supporting terrorism and nuclear weapons, which is against the Koran…They are saying, ‘Let’s negotiate…build relations.’ They use the slogan of ‘change.’ Well, where is this change? What has changed? Make it clear to us—what has changed?”
Then, in contrast to his approach in last year’s live Mashhad speech, Khamenei yesterday spelled out the kinds of changes that Iran needs to see in U.S. policy in order to believe that Obama is serious about wanting to put U.S.-Iranian relations on a more positive trajectory:
“Has your hostility to the Iranian people changed? Where is the sign of that? Have you released the Iranian assets? Have you lifted the unjust sanctions? Have you stopped the mud-slinging, the accusations and the propaganda against this great nation and its leaders who rose from among the people? Have you stopped your unconditional defense of the Zionist regime? What has changed? They use the slogan of change, but in fact there is no evidence of change…Change in words is not enough, not that we have even seen such a significant change in words so far. There should be real change. You say, ‘We want to change our policy. But we will change our tactics, not our goals.’ This is not real change. It is deceit. Real change should be evident in actions.”
Clearly referencing Obama’s statement last year that diplomacy between the United States and Iran “will not be advanced by threats,” Khamenei said yesterday in Mashhad:
“As long as the U.S. government continues its conduct, its actions and its policies against us, as it has done for the past 30 years, we will be the same people we have been in these 30 years. You say ‘We will negotiate with Iran and exert pressure on it.’ This is a threat combined with enticement. Our people resents such talk. It is unacceptable to talk to our people like this.”
In closing, Khamenei seemed to say that, if America does not change the substance of its policies towards the Islamic Republic, Iran will go its own way: “If you do not change, our people has become, over the past 30 years, more resilient, stronger and more experienced”. In this context, it is important to read Khamenei’s lines in Mashhad yesterday about America’s deteriorating strategic position:
“The situation in which the U.S. government has found itself is detrimental to both the American people and its government. Today, you are hated throughout the world… The reason is that you treat the world as if you were its guardians. You talk with arrogance and you want to impose your will on the world. You interfere in the affairs of other countries. You employ double standards in the world… Stop your arrogant tone of speech and your condescending conduct. Stop your patronizing behavior. Don’t interfere in the affairs of other countries.”
These words reflect a growing perception among Iranian political and policymaking elites that the United States is a power in steep and accelerating decline. They are also almost certainly calculated to appeal to elites in rising, non-Western powers—China, Russia, Brazil, India, and in the Arab world—as well as Turkey, which have their own concerns about American arrogance and unilateralism, and assert strict definitions of sovereignty and non-interference in sovereign states’ internal affairs as a defense against perceived U.S. double standards and inclination to meddle in the affairs of other countries.
In this context, Obama’s Nowruz message for this year, which came in a video released by the White House on March 20, seems willfully oblivious to what it would actually take for the United States to achieve a genuine realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations. Obama glosses over his failure to capitalize on the prospective opening created by his forward-leaning rhetoric about Iran that characterized the early months of his presidency with one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book—blame the other guy. Noting that “Iran’s leaders have sought their own legitimacy through hostility to America”, Obama challenges those leaders—“we know what you’re against; now tell us what you’re for”. He then places the onus for the failure of U.S. engagement with Iran squarely on the shoulders of the Islamic Republic’s leaders:
“For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran’s leaders have shown only a clenched fist.”
Taking a page from President George W. Bush’s playbook, Obama continues by praising domestic political opposition in the Islamic Republic:
“Last June, the world watched with admiration as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons, political prisoners were rounded up and abused, and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West, and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.”
Obama concludes with a judgment that “over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.” In this rhetorical context, how can President Obama expect Tehran to take seriously his statement that “our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands”? What is the substantive agenda for such a dialogue—something that the Islamic Republic has explicitly expressed an interest in defining? How has President Obama modified the U.S. posture toward Iran to show that he is truly serious about strategic rapprochement? (Khamenei’s remarks and our conversations with Iranian officials would suggest that Tehran has not observed any such modifications.)
In an asymmetric relationship such as that between the United States and the Islamic Republic, for the United States to insist that Tehran must show that it is “serious” about improved relations before Washington takes concrete steps of its own is a recipe for guaranteed diplomatic failure. If U.S. rapprochement with Iran is now a strategic imperative for America and its allies—as we very strongly believe it is—then Washington needs to be focused on what it will take to achieve rapprochement, not on artificial and self-defeating “tests” of Iranian seriousness. If Richard Nixon had taken the same approach to the People’s Republic of China as Obama is taking to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States might still not have an embassy in Beijing.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Tajudeen Olanyi,
I very much agree that Hillary Clinton is part of the problem, not least due to her near-total lack of a strategic sense. Like a cook with no taste buds.
What continues to fascinate me, is the fact Hillary will not even mention Iran is trying to foster stability in Afghanistan and keep the Taleban out of power in Kabul.
Cyrus, fair enough, I can’t really argue with your last post.
James,
I do not know if there was a proposal as such, and if that was blocked just because of to the interest of Israel and by Israel lobby, or because of the regional strategic interest of the US and its military, which could not have accepted Iran’s regime at that time. I think for Iran’s regional standing Israel is not as important as is the support of Israel by US, that could have been what Iran’s proposal was which did not get accepted in the US by the executive branch and the NSC. I do think that the lobby has many mussels but I do not believe is the only heavy lifter in the town when it comes to Iran and its immediate region.
Arnold this I do not agree with, if the region was stable US would not find the need to move in militarily and invading the unstable countries of the region. More importantly, if it were stable, US probably, would not have get hit, at home, therefore; the situation is not stable all at US’s expense, further it resulted in Iran’s faster regional rise. To gain some lost grounds US now feels a need to destabilize Iran, via insurgencies for regional front, elections disputes internal front and the nuclear issue at the international front. So far non worked.
Arnold Evans,
Iran, and the US taxpayers, should insist ALL US troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. The notion of keeping American troops in Afghanistan “permanently”, is patently insane.
Iran has a right to enrich uranium for its nuclear power program, and it is foolish for the US to object to Iran’s so doing. The issue of adequate transparency can be addressed without great difficulty.
The US has no business whatever trying to “wean” Syria away from Iran, or attempting to cut off Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel gets back in its own borders and stays there, Hamas and Hezbollah will not be problems for the Israelis.
Kooshy,
My understanding is that when Iran suspended enrichment of uranium, in an effort to enable the restoration of normal relations, Iran indicated a willingness to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders (meaning get out of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights). What should be amazing is that Israel’s borders should be an issue bearing on restoration of normal US/Iran relations. The Israel lobby blocked the deal.
The benefit to the US of agreeing to disagree is that at least it’s stable. The US supporting separatists like Rigi can lead Iran to go out of its way, at times of Iran’s choosing, to cause US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. It can cause Iran to take the more provocative options in its nuclear decisions rather than making quiet progress.
Agreeing to disagree definitely will not lead to a war that would be disastrous for Iran, maybe, but has an unacceptably high probability, partly depending on how opportunistic Russia and to a lesser degree, China act in that situation, of ending the US empire as we know it.
Arnold
“I’m sure Iran would be willing to stop chanting “death to America” but that’s just a symbolic measure anyway. Iran clearly would not suspend enrichment of uranium for the changes listed above.”
Moreover, if it did, it would not do US any good, just remember, Iran actually did stop enrichment, but the US did not want have any of it, since this is not what US needs from Iran in the region, what currently US wants, and needs from Iran unfortunately it is against Iran’s regional interest. This is where the stalemate is.
Arnold I agree with your very good analysis, mutual relations between this two countries can be one of three possibilities, a hostile like what it has been for the last 31 years., Or a normal relationship that both sides will respect each sides international rights in which Iran currently can accept but has no benefit for the US. On the other hand, a strategic alliance that will enhance both sides regional strategic interests that the US is currently needing and requiring but with the regional baggage that US is hauling, Iran cannot afford to accept at this time.
Jon — I know that the US consists of many competing interest groups but when it comes to the Mideast and Iran in particular, the folks who favor a more rational, US-centric, non-aggressive policy have never had any influence. What we have seen instead for the last 30 years is continued insistence that the regime lacks legitimacy, is about to fall, should be toppled, represents a threat, and certainly should not be engaged. This view has been ground into the public consciousness not just the political discourse. Remember “Not without my daughter”?
I’m not sure. Let’s say the US did what Khamenei asked: Ended the sanctions, released the frozen assets, stopped the support for separatists, stopped supporting whatever the Green movement is, indigenous or color revolution.
Iran would at that point be willing to help as much as it could to get the US out of Afghanistan with as little violence as possible, but would not be comfortable with a permanent US presence there (which the US wants). Iran would not be comfortable with a permanent US presence in Iraq – and would still thwart US efforts to ensure such a US presence.
Iran would not for the things listed above be willing to starve either Hamas or Hezbollah, or legitimize either US/Israeli/Saudi aligned March 14 in Lebanon or Abbas’ US/Israel-aligned Fatah in Palestine (neither of which got more votes than its opponent in the most recent election).
What specific change would Iran be willing to make if the US made the changes Khamenei asks?
There is a real disagreement in the Middle East between the US and Iran about especially Zionism but an colonial structure the US has in place region-wide that benefits Jews in Palestine and also the Saud family, the Mubarak family and families of the US-dependent dictators throughout the region.
I’m sure Iran would be willing to stop chanting “death to America” but that’s just a symbolic measure anyway. Iran clearly would not suspend enrichment of uranium for the changes listed above.
Persian Gulf,
I agree with you that the Iranian government’s seeming hostility to America could change fairly readily, if the US pursued an intelligent foreign policy in the Middle East. By “intelligent” I mean a foreign policy designed to advance the national interests of the American people. Most Iranians are friendly toward Americans travelling to Iran, but this fact is very little known among the mass of the American public.
Liz,
I think it is more likely Obama does not in fact know what Iran seeks, or does not seek, in the Middle East.
The US virtually revelled in the rise of Iran under the Shah. That was a time of shuttling of important Americans back and forth, and much wining and dining in the US.
A key factor was the Shah’s acceptance of Israel. Today, the only country insisting that Israel give up its scheme to crush Palestinian nationalism, and doing something about it, is Iran.
Someone made this interesting comment for this exact same article on the Monthly Review org.
musawwir
Obama did not miss read nothing, nor did anyone else in his Imperial regime. The issue has always been that the US does not want any independent nation to rise, least of all in the mid-east, and especially not an Islamic Republic, that can and does pose a major threat to the American hegemony in the region. This is why such a concerted effort is placed on secularizing (with the aid of the region’s liberal elite’s, and native informants) the Islamic Republic, because then they will no longer function as an effective example for the other countries/peoples in the region. Another effort is placed on fanning sectarianism, especially through “Saudi” Arabia, and other US cronies in the region.
The premise of this article is wrong, although the analyses of the speeches made by Ayatollah Khamenei is largely correct. The notion that anything was “misunderstood” by the Obama regime is nonsense – they have never been interested in change. In their view, the cost of an independent, Islamic Iran, far outweighs any so-called “strategic imperative” for the US Empire and its cronies (aka allies).
Persian Gulf – nice post; I like your point about Iran, in effect, helping the US to repair their image in the Muslim world. Is there a literal translation of what he actually said?
The problem with Obama is Hillary, they have different foreign policy when campaigning to be President of United State. She do thing her own way, and that is not what the American voted for.
I think the Islamic Republic of Iran has been clear about what it wants from the start. Obama knows very well what Iran is against as well as what it’s for. Obama’s dishonesty reflects the fact that he is looking for an excuse to justify continuing current US policies.
Dan:
Ayatollah Khamenei mentioned what Iran’s leaders are for, if that was the kind of the question Obama would liked to be answered (seen through his message):
-lifting up the unjust sanctions,
-releasing Iranian assets in the U.S,
-avoiding double speak and double game in dealing with Iran
-ending hostilities of any means and avoiding interference in Iran’s internal affairs,
-shaking unconditional support for Israel…to name the major ones,
I think, for the first time, Iran defined what it wants exactly from the mouth of the highest authority of the country. I even said, if his advices are taken rightly, he would like to see America’s image to be repaired, particularly in the Muslim world. that’s a really interesting point. a non-ideological statement in a sharp contrast to the slogan of “death to America”. despite what some shortsighted opponents of the Islamic Republic say, hostility to America is not a very firm pillar of IR’s identity. Islamic Republic has a great capacity to change that dynamic in a short period of time if need be.
Obama is full of rhetoric but no action.
Now that the Leader of the Islamic revolution has called his bluffs, Obama put the blame on him.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett put it nicely:
Obama glosses over his failure to capitalize on the prospective opening created by his forward-leaning rhetoric about Iran that characterized the early months of his presidency with one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book;
“blame the other guy”
Noting that “Iran’s leaders have sought their own legitimacy through hostility to America”, Obama challenges those leaders—
“we know what you’re against; now tell us what you’re for”.
He then places the onus for the failure of U.S. engagement with Iran squarely on the shoulders of the Islamic Republic’s leaders.
In Iran, Leader assails hypocrisy in US approach
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said Sunday the actions of the United States run counter to its call for establishing amicable relations with Iran.
“The new [US] administration and president claimed interest in just and fair relations; they wrote letters and sent messages … saying they are willing to normalize relations with the Islamic Republic, but in practice they did the opposite,” the Leader said in a Nowruz address to Iranians in the holy city of Mashhad.
The remarks came after the US president repeated his symbolic offer of dialogue with Tehran, without specifying what concessions Washington is actually prepared to make.
“We are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations,” said President Barack Obama in a Nowruz message released Saturday. “But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands.”
Ayatollah Khamenei lashed out at the US president for supporting the unrest erupted after last year’s June presidential election, saying the enemies had plans to start a “civil war” in the country.
“They tried very much to divide the people but they failed … this was a victory for the nation,” he said. “Eight months after the elections, they took the worst possible stance. The [US] president called those rioters and saboteurs ‘civil rights activists’.”
“Sometimes the US government appears as a wolf or a fox and looks violent and arrogant, and sometimes they look different,” the Leader added.
The Leader said it was normal for Iran to have enemies as it is supported by the nations around the world. Washington, on the other hand, he said, is hated by the nations around the world for decades of aggression and invasion against sixty countries.
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103221920561&s=107098&e=0012E77TqKniILmV22cpP3IfZN_AR8WIwEecpXEpVTqEna7xc6YoYFeDIe-zj8Ht71KSnJRPHQMrR0dsET4kVXKuKoQRMGiwYfrxAV2BGnD66G0uAfZTTAf8Mg4p3hEovoiFw-ZUX6WI-_Fk19T02EW-XJ-6Gcx4jBlAUx_H9AvmXU=
Here is the link to the 3/21 speech
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1275
Hillary’s speech to bff AIPAC this morning:
” Last June, Iranians marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; and absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States, Israel, and the West. People everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.”
Obama’s NoRooz speech:
““Last June, the world watched with admiration as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist,
as people marching silently were beaten with batons, political prisoners were rounded up and abused, and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West, and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.” ”
ghost-written by Dennis Ross?
I think Ayatollah Khamenei’s speech was an excellent response to Obama’s message. No one has any illusions about the US president any more. If the American government wishes to pursue hostile policies towards Iran, the American’s can just forget about a dignified withdrawal from the region…
First day of the year speech by Ayatollah Kahmenie in the holiest shih site in Iran (shrine of Imam Reza) is very much like the state of the union speech,
therefore, his annual New Year speech is seen to set the direction of state’s internal and external policies for the coming year.
After carefully listening to Ayatollah Khamanaie’s speech yesterday,
Now more than before I do not believe a possibility, for a US, Iran strategic rapprochement exist any time soon.
He clearly was rejecting Mr. Obama’s double face and double talk hinting that he was expecting that.
With regard to US policies toward Iran, two important part of his speech are missing from the passage above by the Levreets.
One is, when he spoke in details regarding the last summer’s election, he mentioned, that like what they have previously practiced in “other” countries during the elections,
they tried to make a civil rift in the country to make possible for a color revolution and change the regime, but their attempt was defeated with unity of people during the anniversary of the elections on Feb. 11.
A second point with regard to the US that the Leveretts did not cover is, about the Human rights approach, which he specifically and directly was addressing Mr. Obama “you are not in a position to talk about the human rights.” With regard to human rights issue, he went on talking about the US records in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the support for the Gaza war that he has not changed since he took office.
More importantly this time he did not even offer that we will change if you change, it was more as if we have seen your hand and enough with that double talk.
Persian Gulf,
I agree with you Obama lacks an understanding of the Persian people. Hillary Clinton is every bit as lacking in this regard, as Obama.
Sakineh,
Obama certainly has the power to be more forthcoming with Iran. The issue is what political price Aipac and other elements of the Israel lobby will force him to pay.
Many American Senators and Congressmen in effect are stooges of Aipac, selling out the national interests of the US for their own political gain. Let’s remember that Lyndon Johnson refused to give adequate support to Britain’s effort to get Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in June 1967, due to pressure from Jewish financiers and other elements of the Israel lobby.
Cyrus,
I very much agree that preventing Iran from buying Boeing airplanes or spare parts is stupid, and worse.
The reason the US fails to act coherently and sensibly regarding Iran has everything to do with the Israel lobby, and very little if anything to do with what is in the best interests of the American people.
Cyrus, it’s not quite so simple. The US is not monlithic. There are competing interest groups whose influence varies depending on the public mood and the results of elections. There is, in fact, a bloc of US opinion that favors engagement. It has so far not achieved majority support in the US, and it may never do so. But the final word has yet to be spoken. American policy towards Iran may change. I daresay the Leveretts started this blog because they felt such a change was possible.
Excellent piece!
Someone once said that US presidency is not like a driver in a car where he can make turns. It is more like and engineer on a train. The policy is mostly laid out( as in tracks). The only thing he can do is pull or push on the lever to slow down or to speed up — no turns. This locomotive (ship of state) is headed towards disaster. The question is how fast or how slow will we get there. People wonder why Obama’s policies are looking more and more like GWB’s. Remember, he can only pull back or push forward.
I am not a fan of Ayatollah Khamenie by any means. actually, I would like to see him stepping down after such a long time as the supreme leader of Iran. It would be a good idea to give him impunity after this job and to see him opening the scene for others and release some of his illogical and absolute concentration of state powers to other constituencies, e.g more to the republican side of the Islamic Republic. I also like to see the power of his office that is exerted through various tools, specially Friday prayers, to get limited to the point of not interfering in the gov.’s daily policies.
however, about this talk and the U.S relation, I am with him. totally!. He is absolutely right in asking the U.S what really changed substantially? without real change on the ground, talking about Iranian people is deceptive. as an Iranian, in addition to free access to internet, as the right that I am practicing right now and would be great to see my countrymen to do the same, I would also like to see sanctions, on all grounds, and hostilities be removed. that’s when I can say I am to some extent free! my flow countrymen and friends as researchers don’t have access to basic scientific instruments and yet this gentleman is talking about Iranian people’s aspirations. his Norowz message this year was an insult to the basic understanding of Iranian people.
Looks guys — if the US was really EVER interested in “engaging Iran” or really resolving the nuclear issue, there were oodles of past opportunities that could have been taken advantage of — but they weren’t, presicely because the US is NOT interested. Iran suspended enrichment for 2.5 years, and the US didn’t bother responding. Iran offered to place significant additional restrictions on its nuclear program — well beyond its legal obligations and beyond what other countries have accepted — and the US didn’t bother to even acknowledge the offer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html?_r=1). We all also remember the 2003 faxed offer, which was not only ignored but nowdays some people are trying to rewrite history to deny that the offer was ever made at all.
Conclusion: the US is simply not interested in resolving its disputes with Iran peaceably, and seeks every opportunity to manufacture and increase the crises. Now, WHY is your guess. But this isn’t simply a case of two sides that want to get along. No, one side definitely doesn’t.
It’s tragic that the US is wasting a golden opportunity to improve its relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The change in tone of Ayatollah Khamenei since last year effectively means that Iran is losing interest, because the there is no one in the US government who is serious about changing the current situation.
Very important piece. Thank you. Any way you can get Khamenei’s words out to a wider audience — perhaps through an op-ed in one of the major establishment newspapers? Of course, Khamenei ought to tone down some of his rhetoric. But I think the biggest obstacles to serious engagement are the Obama administration’s timidity and the vociferous opposition of the neocons/the Lobby/the Republican Party establishment.
I would love to see Petraeus follow up his words about Israel with a statement or two concerning the strategic advantages of a friendly (or at least not hostile) US-Iranian relationship.
Republicans and Democrats. Bush & Obama. Just two sides of the same coin. The coin in Israeli pockets.
Bravo! Great piece, and I agree entirely that Khamenei makes it clear Iran wants genuine engagement. What role is Dennis Ross playing in this thing now? During the campaign he argued that the game plan would be to pretend to seek to engage with Iran, to grease the skids for sanctions and maybe more. Ross is in charge of Iran policy at the National Security Council, and of course formerly he was working under Hillary Clinton at the State Dept.
Is Obama unable to comprehend how stunningly stupid, and vicious, it is for the US to support terrorists operating within Iran?
I think the “misreading” and “failing to report” on Khamenei’s response to Obama is deliberate. The idea is to portray the US as offering negotiations, and Iran as the “intransigent” party — thus justifying sanctions and a further escalation of relations with Iran.
If Obama was REALLY interested in “supporting the people of Iran” and encouraging exchanges, he could start by actually DOING something instead of cheap talk: remove US sanctions on the sale of spare parts and services for Iran’s fleet of civilian Boeing aircraft. These sanctions are not only a violation of international law and the Chicago Convention, but also needlessly place the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iranians at risk.
But lets face it — Obama does not control US foreign policy with respect to Iran; AIPAC does. The last people who want to see any improved US-Iran relations are AIPAC.