Ahmadinejad's Letter To Obama, His Response, and Its Impact on the Islamic World

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the first leader from the "axis of evil club", and its affiliates, to congratulate Barack Hussein Obama on his November 4th victory. Ahmadinejad's unprecedented congratulation letter might be interpreted as an olive branch from Tehran.

But, in essence, it is the recognition of this new image of the United States, which has strong potential to restore the American reputation that was injured in Muslim countries during the two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the forefront of war against terrorism.

It is a significant symbolic step that, in a long run, can turn to a dramatic shift in the U.S. foreign policy toward its major issues in the region.

The Shiite Iran has garnered attention from the international community during the past few years for its persistent effort to obtain nuclear energy, support of groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine and ambiguous, disturbing role in Iraq.

But more than all of the above, Iran is the ideological and political engine for Shiite Muslims around the world. From the streets of the Al Hasa region in Saudi Arabia, where much of Saudi Arabia's minority Shiite population and, coincidentally, most of its oil is situated, to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, Bahrain, Yemen and even India, the Islamic Revolution has been an inspiration for the minority Shiites, especially those in Iraq where the population majority is Shiite.

Shiite is among the few sects on the Islamic faith that strongly believes in ruling nations under the Islamic law, or Shria, a belief that has given birth to political Islam. The founder of Islamic Republic of Iran named the United States the 'Great Satan'; since then anti-Americanism has become part of Iran's identity and fuel for Shiite movements in the entire Middles East.

But now, Iran's anti-American image is in a paradoxical situation. President-elect Barack Obama, who ran a campaign based on ideals like government for people, justice, equality and the other populist social slogans that have also been centerpieces of the Ayatollahs' premise to change the world and pave the way to heaven for their people.

Early this year, Ahmadinejad said that the, "U.S. Establishment will not let Obama win the Presidential election." Ironically, in none of the Muslim countries, including Iran, does a man of a minority ethnicity like Obama have a slim chance of getting a position in a high office. But it was American democracy that made it happen and allowed a man of minority ethnicity end eight years of a Bush administration that has been damaging for America's moral authority in the world.

Obama's victory disarms leaders like Ahmadinejad, who for decades have used inefficient American policies as excuses to justify their failures, mismanagement and corruption. His election makes the American dream real for many in Islamic countries, including Iran.
Paradoxically, Obama's middle name, Hussein, is the name third Imam of Shiites, a sacred symbol of freedom and dignity and a star of oppressed people against tyranny and slavery. No single other moral symbol in Shiite history is more important than Hussein in fights against enemies and infidels. The name Hussein is mixed with respect, honor and glory, a man who lost his life tragically in fight with infidels in an unequal and brutal battle on the October 10th, 680 AD. Fourteen centuries after the event, Shiites mourn his death and discuss it mixed in their literature, art, folklore, and daily life.

Obama's name and his unique stories from childhood, to his time as a community organizer, to his campaign against John McCain, which is read as a fight against the infamous George W. Bush, resonates strongly with millions of Shiites. Thus, Obama's victory fits into their mythology and prompts them to celebrate it.

Barack Obama's situation and reception in many Islamic countries, including Iran, now is similar to President Bush's place in the world after the 9/11 tragedy, which created a high level of international sympathy for the United States.

He is in a unique position to solve the United States' dilemma, not only with Shiite Iranians but also with the other troubling groups and countries in the Middle East, if and only if he does not ignore this opportunity like President Bush did after 9/11.

While anti-Americanism has become the Islamic Republic's identity, talking to Iran will diminish the Ayatollah's revolutionary image and force the Iranian government to play a more responsible role and end mischief in the Middle East. Obama's response to Ahmadinejad's letter could be the first step toward drawing a new foreign policy framework in order to bring the United States on the right track.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[Bigmo]

The first hadith book compiled was the Muwatta of Imam Malik about 160 years after Muhammad. there are no earlier written records which is why even though Sunni/Shias have the same copy of the Koran they have different hadiths with each side claiming the other fabricated. It was Al Shafi at about 170 years who argued that the Sunnah should be a second revelation along the Koran. The hadiths are identical to the Talmud and was only understood centuries after Muhammad. Muhammad never left any written record except the Koran. All the 4 Caliphs like Abu Bakr and Umar never authorized or compiled any text except the Koran. I am sorry but you are listening to sectarian islam. There is nothing called a weak verse, or a strong verse or a anything else in the koran. But hadiths are categorized. How do you categorize truth, its either truth or not. Hadiths are an innovation introduced to Islam and many hadiths have pagan, zoroastrian and jewish roots.There is nothing called Islamic law in the koran. Which is one thing good the Christians did was they never placed another revelation alongside the Bible. Unlike Judaism and Christianity which to this day believe the oral traditions abrogate the Koran and Torah. Without hadiths there is nothing called an "Islamic " legal system.

[Bahramerad]

This idea has already been rejected by all and sundry — from Washington/obam to Khamanei/Tehran.
It is a dead horse. drop it!
The rule of the mullahs has come to it's end — they are now a bankrupted country with a bankrupted ideology. let them die a peaceful death — unless off course you what bloody mayhem and want to do it the hard way and kill millions doing so.

[onceler]

let's not give Ahmadinejad so much stature as to call either his letter or Obama's response to it some kind of revolutionary opportunity. Ahmadinejad is just another politician during an election year running for office trying to throw red meat to his supporters back home. viewed through this lens, his overture is best read, politely thanked, and ignored. if Khomeini wants to write a letter, that might mean something.

really, what people should be sending Obama are reports from the IAEA, the world's authority on the issue, stating that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program, no plans to develop one in the future, and no nuclear weapons. he needs to ratchet down the BS tough-guy talk on this issue now that he's been elected. Iran has no nuke and isn't seeking one.

[Kenji]

Maybe you should try reading the piece before commenting on it.

[Overd0g]

Hopefully Obama will bomb the crap out of their nuke installations, thereby producing love and peace.

[TLV]

On this side of the ocean, John McCain was touting nuclear energy while running for president. On their side of the ocean it's a crime to produce it?

Please explain.

[mick7191]

That's a positive thought.

[mick7191]

I say let them do what they want and make sure they know the consequences of a nuclear detonation somewhere in the western world. M.A.D. worked with the Soviets and the Chinese.

[Kristen777]

Call me naive, but I claim the audacity to hope for peace with those whose ideology is different from our own.

I do believe that Iranian citizens essentially want the same things we want - especially the freedom to worship as they choose and to pursue happiness as they define it.

[oldmule]

This article held special interest for me as an american who lived and worked in Iran for over 20 years after the Islamic Revolution. However, I must take exception with one comment of the writer. He stated that someone of a minority ethnicity could never be elected to high office in Iran. I would be interested to know, what does he believe former President Rafsanjani was? Is he not a person of "minority ethnicity?" He was at the time of his presidency and still is, a powerful figure in the Iranian government. It has been my experience that in Iran, little credence is give to issues such as this.

[TucsonKK]

Obama will bring peace around the world by not demanding other leaders to change or govern like the US does and to respect other countries beliefs, religions and government. Who are we to tell others around the world how to live. Obama will be fair and honest and transparent with our government and others around the world.

Bushy has been a monster in the way he has handled other countries and now we are hated around the world. I hope that Obama has someone watching this monster as a lot of damage can be done in these last 69 days.

[canarypapers]

This post neatly skims over the truth of U.S. relations with Iran, beginning with our imperialistic coup d'état of their first democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953 -- a move that piggy-backed onto nearly a century of British imperialistic rule in Iran. Our motive then was the same as today: OIL. We've never been one to flinch at exploiting the mineral resources of other countries, so that we may live like kings, while our benefactors live in wretched poverty under oppresive, U.S.-installed dictators amenable to our interests.

The only way we can support the lie that we are a beacon of democracy is to re-write history. Our romance of Reagan is but one example. Remember when Reagan & Bush Sr. climbed into bed with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s? Remember how we and our allies not only suppled Iraq with arms and military equipment, but with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biowarfare technology and the chemical WMDs that contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iranians?

Remember how we SIMULTANEOUSLY, secretly & illegally sold arms to Iran (the Iran-Contra Affair),via our pal Israel? Remember how (surprise, surprise!) the funds from these sales were used to fund the Nicaraguan Contras? This is our SOP. A good step toward restoring U.S. respect throughout the world would be to acknowledge our past -- or, at the very least, stop committing dirty, covert politics.

[Kristen777]

You are so right about this, canary. That's what makes our past and current Middle-East policy such a disgraceful sham. At the end of the day, it's all about the benjamins.

[djwfutbol]

Everything you say is correct but it is pointless. The great tragedy of the Middle East is the ever constant looking back. We are certainly not the only players with blood on our hands. In fact, everyone can claim to be responsible for any number of instances of inhumanity to one another. None of what happened can be changed. We can only move forward if we hope to have peace, stability and prosperity in that area.

[TLV]

Exactly. Iran is a short cut from the Caspian oil fields to to the Indian Ocean and waiting oil tankers. That's all.

[canarypapers]

This post neatly skims over the truth of U.S. relations with Iran, beginning with our imperialistic coup d'état of their first democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953 -- a move that piggy-backed onto nearly a century of British imperialistic rule in Iran. Our motive then was the same as today: OIL. We've never been one to flinch at exploiting the mineral resources of other countries, so that we may live like kings, while our benefactors live in wretched poverty under oppresive, U.S.-installed dictators amenable to our interests.

The only way we can support the lie that we are a beacon of democracy is to re-write history. Our romance of Reagan is but one example. Remember when Reagan & Bush Sr. climbed into bed with Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s? Remember how we and our allies not only suppled Iraq with arms and military equipment, but with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biowarfare technology and the chemical WMDs that contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iranians?

Remember how we SIMULTANEOUSLY, secretly & illegally sold arms to Iran (the Iran-Contra Affair),via our pal Israel? Remember how (surprise, surprise!) the funds from these sales were used to fund the Nicaraguan Contras? This is our SOP. A good step toward restoring U.S. respect throughout the world would be to acknowledge our past -- or, at the very least, stop committing dirty, covert politics.

[OutsiderSA]

I believe that BO will be successful in instigating a peace in the middle east. A demilitarization of the entire area in respect of the ability to annihilate one another would lead to a fragile peace.

It would seem pretty pointless trying to convince Iran to not persue nuclear options while Israel already has it.

Once peace has been achieved, then the Israel GOP ace card will be removed from the equation for future elections

Each nation is entitled to defend itself but that does not include MAD WMD.

One must not forget that only the USA has ever used nuclear weapons against other humans.

[DanoS1]

I felt Obama’s response to the Iranian letter was very poor. No one asked him about Iranian policy or a nuclear Iran, but rather simply if he saw the letter and responded to it.

In that regard, I was disappointed he went there and he seemed dismissive of it. He could have giving a more open or positive response and acknowledgement.

[Bigmo]

Sunnis and Shites follow hadiths, the oral traditions compiled 2 centuries after Muhammad. The hadiths lay out the legal rulings from anything from war, charity, fasting etc. Its what Shariah is made of. It is called the Sunnah. The Koran did not lay out any political or legal framework by itself. Hadiths play the same role as the Talmud has in Judaism. Christianity however has no oral traditions alongside the Bible which is why its less legalistic. Western academics like Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht wrote about the hadiths and they believed they were a fabrication that emerged long after Muhamad or something like that. So another words Islamic law as understood is considered an innovation to help the later islamic Empires to govern their subjects by invoking Islam. In fact the term Shariah law is not even in the Koran and neither is Caliphate. Yet Islamist try to create that form of a state which is why you have to follow some sect like Sunnism or Shism to have an islamist agenda because the Koran does not lay out a legal framework and is mostly vague about issues like that. The jusrists of these sects created a legal framework relying on the compiled oral traditions known as hadiths.

[mmmd]

Your concept of Hadith and sunnah is not correct.
Hadith and Sunnah are the primary source of law derived from the action, saying and approval of prophet Muhammad. By definition, therefore, they cannot originate long after him, but started during his life. These laws were put into action during his lifetime, and the Islamic empire, starting with the first Caliph after Muhammmad's death, used it as one of the two major sources of law; the other being the Qur'an.
Within 200 years of Muhammad's death Hadith was examined and graded according to accuracy : Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Daif (weak, this group was added later), Maudu (fabricated) etc. If you check a hadith you will find the grading in parenthesis. I find it surprising that so many centuries ago they took that much care to verify each hadith. Definitely there are false hadith. But some actions or sayings of Muhammad were seen and heard by such a vast number of people (as statesman and spiritual leader, he, after all, led a very public life) that they are considered beyond doubt.

[mmmd]

The ignorance in this post is shocking. As statesman and spiritual teacher, Muhammad led a very public life. His actions and saying, which are the Hadith, were both observed and copied by hundreds during his lifetime. The Hadith were compiled within two centuries of his life, which means they were recorded along with their chain of transmission and the Hadith themselves sorted into groups according to credibility: sound, good, weak and fabricated. By definition, Hadith cannot originate long after Muhammad, because Hadith IS Muhammad. And it's pretty obvious from history, that great care was to preserve Hadith at a very early stage.
As for Islamic law being an innovation, a little common sense will refute that. Muhammad founded the state Medina and Islamic law based on the Quran and Hadith (sunnah) was put into action during his lifetime. After his death,Caliphs Abu bakr and Umar were the rulers of the Islamic state. Especially during Umar's time the muslim empire encompassed all of middle East, north Africa up to Spain. This enormous state was under Islamic law and considering the fact that Umar was one of the closest followers of Muhammad, it's obvious that the concept of Islamic Law is nothing new and was, in fact, firmly in place from Muhammad's time.

[mmmd]

Sorry about the double post. The first went into moderation, so I thought I must have a put in a no-no word.

[Ms Fu]

Thanks for the correction. This complies with teachings about Hadith I was given as a kid.

[suzy345]

To be sure, Obama can't suddenly declare that he no longer wants direct, unconditional talks. That would enrage his anti-war base. So, he is trying to bring the camel down from the roof, as the Persian proverb has it, without appearing to have made a U-turn.

Obama no longer talks of "meeting them anywhere, anytime." Instead, he speaks of engaging Iran "at a time and place of my choosing." His initial idea of talking to Ahmadinejad is also gone. Now, he says he'd talk to "appropriate Iranian leadership" (whatever that means).

Clearly, he has toned down the concept of "unconditional talks." He talks of "careful preparations," while his advisers say that he won't seek talks with Tehran until after the Iranian presidential election next summer. The idea is to deny Ahmadinejad a breakthrough with America that would bolster his re-election bid.

[Hillblogger]

Yep, agree completely -- President-elect Obama has disarmed the bellicose Iranian prez. I say, take advantage of the situation and "DIS-ARM" Iran.

[JoBalz]

Ahmadinejad's letter: my first reaction was suprise; followed by a possible offer reaching out to the new administration. I hope it's the latter. After 8 years of the Bush/Cheney/Neocon rhetoric against Iran, Obama administration nds to work on a deplomatic way to bring our countries together. I'd also like to see the Obama administration drop the embargo with Cuba. Though it's still Communist, we work with other Communist countries around the world. Cuba is not dangerous to our way of life (no Soviet/Russia connection, no nuclear weapons). Consider the value to both sides of a diplomatic solution to our long standoff with them, the economic gains on both sides from a resumed trading relationship,the benefit of family that can again travel back and forth to visit. One thing that particularly interests me: what kind of effect would we have on the Cuban economy and People as we bring into their country good, services, businesses that we take for granted but many in Cuba has never had the opportunity to experience. The Big 3 American Auto Makers? There MAYbe a market in Cuba for small, gas sipping models to replace those cars they drive that are 50 years old (or older). How about a renewed tourist industry to the island.So much to gain opening up to Cube and so little to gain by if we continue it.We didn't defeat Cuba in 50 years, it's time for a new relationship.,Let's fonsign both of these to history!

[Lulliloo]

"What's in a name", Hussein!
What a (possibly) profoundly positive impact could Barack Obama's middle name, this one word, have foreign relations with the Muslim world!

[TLV]

Blessed. That's what it means. Let's hope so.

[Ms Fu]

That's what I was thinking also. Perhaps there was a time when Muslims were a little wonderous about the name, but I think that they're smart enough to know that regardless of his name, Barack Obama will most likely act in the best interest of the US and Israel, which may or may not comply with what Muslim nations want/need.