Dear Mahmoud

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter to President-elect Barack Obama, the first of its kind in the thirty-year history of the Islamic Republic, has so far gone unanswered. President-elect Obama has understandably been busy with filling cabinet and sub-cabinet posts, as well trying to figure out what on earth he's going to do with the various messes he's inherited (including the Bush administration's jaw-dropping position on the situation in Gaza, an aerial bombardment with American-made F-18s and hellfire missiles that has killed hundreds of Palestinians and has handed yet another PR coup to would-be terrorists the world over), so it's not surprising that writing a thank you note to Mahmoud has not been on the top of his to-do list.

Obama's advisors may have suggested that replying to the Iranian president will only strengthen his position in the run-up to the Iranian presidential elections of June 2009, and there may be some truth to that. However, it is also true that, much as when Lee Bolinger, the President of Columbia University, insulted Ahmadinejad before he delivered his speech there in 2007, the majority of Iranians will take a lack of response as an insult not just to Ahmadinejad (who some may even loathe as much as ordinary Americans), but as an insult to Iran, and Ahmadinejad's position could just as easily be strengthened with Iranians rallying behind their leader (as they generally did in support of him after the Columbia debacle), as it could be weakened by a lack of response.

President-elect Obama's foreign policy team should carefully consider how the Iranian people, as well as their government, will react to either an acknowledgment of Ahmadinejad's outreach or the insult of complete silence. Given that in almost every foreign policy issue that Obama will face at the end of January 2009 Iran will figure prominently; whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian-Israeli issue, or Iran's actual nuclear program; a response (or lack of one) to Iran's president is of far more importance than one might ordinarily think, for either choice will set the tone for future negotiations, something Obama has promised throughout his campaign. (For example, even if Ahmadinejad is not re-elected president next year and a more moderate "reformer" is, that reformer or "pragmatist" will have a very hard time convincing the hard-line conservatives, who will continue to have the Supreme Leader's ear, that the U.S. is ready to enter into negotiations on the basis of mutual respect.)

Should President-elect Obama decide to write to Mahmoud, his message need not contain anything he's uncomfortable with. In fact, even using the language of diplomacy (and not the language of Lee Bollinger), it can still raise the issue of discomfort with Iranian rhetoric and question her intentions. (Iranians can handle it, and believe me, their skins aren't any thinner than Americans'.) But with respect to the Iranian president's letter, the Obama team must take into consideration the centuries old customs and manners of proud culture, which requires an acknowledgment of some sort, even if laced with criticism. Perhaps it might read something like this?

Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President, Islamic Republic of Iran

I am in receipt of your congratulatory letter of November 5, 2008. I appreciate the sentiments you've expressed on behalf of your nation; an ancient land with a great culture that has contributed much to civilization as we know it.

As you are aware, during my campaign I repeatedly said that I would be prepared, as president, to talk to leaders of nations that the United States has disagreements (or even conflict) with, and I intend to follow through with my pledge at the appropriate time. I will take this opportunity, however, to express my deep concern with much of the rhetoric, bellicose rhetoric emanating from Tehran, that serves no purpose other than to further divide our two nations and to unfortunately isolate yours.

As I have repeatedly said, I have been deeply troubled by not just Iran's nuclear program, but also its support of terrorist groups and the language Iranian officials use with respect to Israel, a U.S. ally. In addition, your questioning of the Holocaust, an undisputed historical fact, is also not only deeply offensive to me and other Americans, but hurtful to the many Americans who are either survivors (or descendants of both survivors and victims) of that human tragedy.
It is still my hope, as I have publicly expressed it, that with a vigorous pursuit of diplomacy on both sides, the U.S. and Iran will find a way to peacefully resolve their differences in the coming years.

Barack Hussein Obama
President-elect of the United States of America

Comments

[mozeovr]

I wish Obama would bring you into his foreign policy fold for guidance and eduction, as well I wish you would send your entire post to Obama and/or his Ms. Rice, his choice for U.N. ambassador. Are you able to do that?

[twoton]

"so it's not surprising that writing a thank you note to Mahmoud has not been on the top of his to-do list"

It's not surprising at all, he is just voting "present" as he does whenever tough decisions have to be made. Hold on to your hats for the next four years!

[SiberianRat]

Bleh.

[strick9]

We must first get past the improper translations of the Iranian language with respect to Israel. There are many things being done to average law abiding Palestinian people in the name of Israel that should be addressed under international law. It is sad that those in Israel’s government learned so well from their captors in WWII. Thriving on fear and hate. I find inconsistency in the Christian in America view.

They argue, that we must respect the Jewish God’s gift of, the Promised Land to the tribes of Israel, even if they had been gone nearly 2000 years and Palestinians had inhabited this land all those years. Using this logic would it not follow that, if the Gods of the Native American tribes had also given them this land we should all pack up and go back to our land of origin.

[hu.man]

Ahmadinejad might mean well but he is misguided to an extreme. His denial that Holocaust ever took place makes him a criminal in many European countries. When he is asked about this in interviews with foreign journalists he responds by saying that we need to reexamine the historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and that is somehow not being allowed.

This type of rhetoric just stokes the flames of antisemitism. That somehow there is some sort of Jewish conspiracy to hide the facts surrounding the Holocaust and make it appear a more drastic event than it actually was. Ahmadinajad is truly an embarrassment to the Iranian people who have an extended history of multicultural tolerance specially in the view of having freed Jews from Babylonian slavery (biblical documentation).

A better response would be to write a letter addressed directly to the Iranian people bypassing Ahmadinejad to let them know, among other things, how their elected leader is unnecessarily creating animosity between their great nation and the rest of the civilized world by parading his ignorance for everyone to see.

[LazloTu]

I fully support a diplomatic response from PE Obama to the Iran president. Perhaps he's already done so... Whatever, I agree with Obama's plan to "talk" with all Nation leaders toward world peace. We MUST become the leaders toward world peace and co-existance!

[Harry4U]

If you want latest content on Networking and Database Security...

Visit:::::

http://www.database-and-security.blogspot.com


THANKS....­..........­......

[TotoToo]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[cylindar]

I need to tell you that no letter has to be penned. Ahmadinejad is basically a nobody even to Iranians. Nobody takes him seriously and are more embarrassed by him than anything else. Obama could very easily ignore him and do quite well. He is not the real power in Iran and you and I both know this.

[RenoSage]

A polite congratulatory note requires only a polite acknowledgment in response.

[GardenerNorCal]

I agree, just a polite acknowledgement is all that is needed.

[Teamster]

Never give a stump to stand on is my my veiw a simple politic strat of winning .

There are no words at this time that can achieve a desired goal.

Posted as an opinion of one only.

[tcagle]

Now two.

[PKSSK]

Now three.

[plebeianswillrevolt]

Shallow and pretentious

He never denied the holocost. Cast doubts the exaggerated reported numbers - as I, a historian, do too. 11 million, 12 million... nonsense. Leave Iran alone,

FIX AMERICA Barack.

[FirstShirt]

Here's another less diplomatic response.

Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President, Islamic Republic of Iran

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

I received your letter of congratulations and appreciate your kind words. Being new to diplomacy, I hope you will accept my comments in the spirit in which they are given.

Praphrasing something Patton once allegedly said to his Russian hosts, I will not drink with any Iranian SOB. Especially one that supports killing jews and gays.

And, although we are stretched thin by the actions of my predecessor, if you ever threaten the existence of Israel or any other country I will personally come over there and put a whuppin' on your Persian *ss.

Barack Hussein Obama
President-elect of the United States of America

[sherbug]

Why did you support Obama if you feel like this. Didn't we just get through with 8 years of giving everybody the bird? That method has not gotten us anywhere and as far as I can see nothing is any better.

If you are here banging the drums for the gay community again, then you are on the wrong post. Gay people don't get high marks in the Middle East and that is a fact that you will need to learn to live with. Meanwhile we need to have peace between Hamas and Israel, which means we are going to have to deal with Iran, which means there has to be some measure of diplomacy, not the antagonistic rhetoric that you suggest.

[SiberianRat]

Homosexuality is illegal in most if not all of the Muslim world (including in countries that are our allies), so to hang that solely on Iran is dumb. Ahmadinejad didn't directly threaten Israel--he said he'd like to see it erased, but he didn't say that Iran was going to do it. Iran has not attacked another country in over two centuries. I hope that the Iranians re-elect Mohammad Khatami.

[scottowego]

Though we have differences of oppinion and policies, Iran is still a sovereign state and as such deserves a courteous reply. It's just politics. Because I believe it's time to turn the page and start unifying this tempestuous world I think at the very least we need to communicate.

[a human being]

Yes, President Obama should answer President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter, as a way to start a new relation with Iran (Mr. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected president), based on mutual respect, or even on friendship!

Now on the Iran nuclear program problem, I think that Iran as any other country has the right to nuclear energy (just like all the countries who use nuclear power to produce electricity: Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc. ), since even though it’s an oil producer its population growth and its diminishing reserves of oil, make it an alternative source of energy for this country.

Because forbidding this country its right to choose a source of energy is not fair, since a country can use nuclear power to make electricity without being a nuclear power (examples are numerous: Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc).

[IranQuest]

I agree with the above comment and would add that if Obama/Clinton tell Iran that talks may occur if they stop their nuclear program, then talks will never occur. The new US administration needs to very carefully consider their words when dealing with Iran. (Iran, you need to do the same.)

[AliMB]

In contrast to Mr. Majd's argument, I thought it was healthy for Ahmadinejad to hear criticism at Columbia... he was invited to a private university campus, not a state dinner. Only in a 'progressive' mind would criticizing a world leader with a poor human rights record be considered a “debacle”. Mr. Majd's conclusion that Bollinger's words caused many Iranians to rally around Ahmadinejad is true, if however misleading, since there are already many Iranians who strongly support the president regardless of what happens in the United States. Let us move away from the common hypothesis that Iran is this secret liberal, pluralistic, humanist society just waiting to embrace America if it weren't for Bush and his failed policies. Yes, there are many Iranians who think that way, but there is no reliable statistic to prove that this constitutes a majority or popular movement... remember that this is the Islamic Republic of Iran, founded on a pillar of anti-Americanism, with a controlled media and a deeply-entrenched religious vanguard. I think it is bad foreign policy for Obama to try and guess how the Iranian people will "react", given the lack of conclusive, empirical information. It could also prove disastrous as a policy catalyst (ala Iraq). Instead, President Obama should focus on how to get concessions, and with what tools of statecraft, from the real Iranian power brokers who can directly affect US national interests. Because I don’t think the Quds Force does focus groups.

[Bonobo]

Insulting a guest on camera is pretty insulting, even in NYC. Particularly the klutzy, whiny way Bollinger did it. The thing about nationalism is that even when you think your leader is a blowhard and an idiot, foreigners saying it can really grate. Especially when you live in a culture that's really anxious about it's place in the world. Criticize Ahmadinejad, certainly. Just don't be a boor about it.

Also, keep in mind that the majority of Iranians were born after the Revolution. They don't really have a direct emotional connection, there. Probably sick of hearing the old folks go on and on about it. Like Obama feels about the sixties. Generational bloodfeud isn't as big in Persian culture as in central Arab lands.