Will Tehran Tango? Obama's Historic Norooz Greeting

In an unprecedented - if not historic - New Year's message to the Iranian people and the government of Iran, President Barack Obama used the ancient Iranian New Year - Norooz - holiday to usher in a new beginning for US-Iran relations.

The video message, aired around 0800am in the morning in Iran, will be the topic of conversation at every Norooz gathering - in Iran as well as in America.

"For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together," the president said.

Expressing deep admiration and respect for Iranian civilization - as well as the contributions of Iranian Americans to American society - Obama put forward a vision for a new era of US-Iran ties. In almost every aspect, Obama's approach was the opposite of that of President George Bush.

First, he did not try to bypass the Iranian government by speaking to the Iranian people alone. Instead, he addressed both.

Second, he referred to the "Islamic Republic of Iran," the formal name of Iran after the 1979 revolution, indicating his acceptance of the revolution and the reality of the current government. This will likely be read in Tehran as an indication that the policy of the United States no longer is regime change. This does not, of course, mean that Obama opposes democratization in Iran - rather, it means that Washington will seek behavioral rather than regime change in Tehran.

Third, he recognized that threats will not help resolve US-Iran tensions. No more "all options are on the table" or the implicit or explicit threat of force as a stick to compel Iranian submission.

Fourth, he recognizes that all outstanding issues between the two countries must be addressed in an atmosphere of mutual respect. It is not just America's concerns with Iran that will be addressed, but also Iranian concerns.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, Obama signaled America's strategic intent to achieve constructive ties among the United States and Iran. This is essential as he declared that the American end game is to have a positive relationship with Iran and that he intends to put the destructive enmity of the past three decades behind them. Signaling this intent will make any tactical cooperation with Iran in Afghanistan more likely and more fruitful, for reasons I have explained here and here. Absent this strategic signal, the Iranians would likely have refused helping the United States tactically in Afghanistan.

Sixth, within that strategic intent, Obama declared that the United States wants Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations - meaning an American acceptance of a prominent Iranian role in the region, granted of course, that Iran changes its behavior. Obama understands what the Iranians want - recognition and inclusion in the region's political, economic and security structures - and he is willing to offer it if the Iranians change their policies. This is a significant break with the Bush Administration policies.

"So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek," Obama said. "It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce."

Finally, by quoting one of Iran's great poets, Saadi, Obama showed once more his respect and appreciation for Iranian culture - and that he understands that uniqueness of the Iranian nation. Iran is its own civilization - something the President of the United States appreciates and respects.

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.

Comments

[EastAsia]

Trita Parsi: "Obama understands what the Iranians want - recognition and inclusion in the region's political, economic and security structures".

None of this connects to Iran's building of ICBM's, nuclear weapons, holocaust denial, threats against Israel, or whipping up of terrorism. Recognition and inclusion have been available through the path of normal diplomacy. The West has been pretty friendly, paying Iran hundreds of billions of dollars for oil that the West could simply have taken by force for much less cost. I really doubt we know exactly what the Iranians want. They could be simply stoned on dreams of Islamic Glory or a Beautiful Death. I don't think we should pretend they are making sense.

[sol313]

I wonder why the Iranians are not jumping up and down with joy at this unprecedented message. Must be those Mullahs.
If the Iranians had sent us a message that they would be willing to talk to us if we renounced terrorism and stopped seeking strength through weapons, we wouldn't have found that condescending at all.

[politicky]

It was a nice message for the people of Iran. It will be interesting to see if some kind of open diplomatic relationship can begin. It will be like a beginning after all these years.

[BottomLine2008]

So far, the Ayatollah doesn't like it. Iran is a big problem. It's going to take a lot more than a smart video.

[silverball]

yes, it will take more....but, after the last 8 years of huff and puff and cowboy diplomacy...it's a good place to start.....

[pearlx2]

If you read the whole article here entitled "Iran's Supreme Leader Rejects Obama Overtures," you'll see that the so-called rejection is mostly political posturing; this is very encouraging to me, to understand where the Supreme Leader was coming from with his seemingly negative language. We in this country can certainly understand political posturing in order to pacify the base. Here's what the end of the article states:

"Prominent political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Khamenei's comments did not amount to a rejection of better ties with the Obama administration. Rather, Iran's current hard-line leaders need to publicly maintain some degree of anti-U.S. rhetoric to bolster their own position, especially with their conservative base, he said.

"'Iran's ruling Islamic establishment needs to lessen tensions with the U.S. and at the same time maintain a controlled animosity with Washington," he said. "Iran can't praise Obama all of a sudden.'"

[Lahonda]

The US has to be the patient constituent in this matter. PO cannot sweep 30 years of animosity away in a conversation. The dialog has commenced however. Every time the President speaks to his own people, do you not think that he speaks to the people of the world? As a Canadian, I find the rhetoric refreshing and uplifting. I'm sure many Iranian citizens do as well.

[nickwib]

The message was indeed a change of content but it carried a patronising tone. You look like an agreeable fellow, you may be invited to a tea party one day but you must clean yourself up a bit first, wear a tie and polish your shoes. There’s a good boy.

Some conciliatory act what would be more infinitely useful.

[Right-turn]

Iran rejects Barack Obama's hand of friendship

Iran has rejected US President Barack Obama's offer of a "new beginning" in diplomatic relations between the two countries.

By Colin Freeman
Last Updated: 8:53AM GMT 21 Mar 2009

The country"s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a speech on Saturday morning saying that Tehran detected no change in US policies towards his government.

"They give the slogan of change but in practice no change is seen," said Mr Khamenei in a televised address to mark Iranian New Year. "We haven"t seen any change." He added that the US was "hated in the world" and should stop meddling in other nation"s internal affairs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5026873/Iran-rejects-Barack-Obamas-hand-of-friendship.html

I said last night that he was pissing into the wind on this one.

[nickwib]

You could well find the message was strategic rather than tactical. It may have been intended more for Israeli ears.

[silverball]

i agree....and also the ENTIRE middle east.....

[zukervati]

Why should Iran respond in kind? That's not a given, simply because the Americans now have been suddenly enlightened and feel vindicated through Obama's victory in the election. What about the American intervention dating all the way back even before Shah's time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Middle_East#Iran:_The_first_U.S._intervention_in_the_Middle_East_after_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine
Now, suddenly, with no deference to the past, the Iranians should accept the olive branch? I think not.

[khepri]

Agreed. Obama was right to initiate the overture, and Khameni was right to challenge this country's sincerity by asking for deeds. It's a good start.

[BottomLine2008]

Oh, you said last night?

The only thing that happens overnight is right-wingers holding on to their hatred of Obama.

[Wozzeck]

The Telegraph is as neocon a rag as there is. Look for it to stir up animosity toward Iran.

[JonSmiley]

Brilliant analysis once again.

[louisamast]

Iran is a threat mainly because:
1. In 1953 Iran interfered in our political affairs and set up a coup and changed our democratic elected government of Dr. Mosadegh. Iran repeated similar action in many other countries. Just recently has allocated a large fund to create instability in our country.
2. When Iraq attacked us, Iran fully supported this war and provided Iraq with military, political and WMDs. Our 1000+ WMD victims are still in their hospital beds for the world to see.
3. In July 1998, Iranian Navy shot down our commercial plane with almost 300 passengers and crewmembers while flying legally over OUR Persian Gulf using two cruise missiles. Only 100 bodies were recovered from water. The captain who executed this mission received presidential medal of honor.
4. Iran has been involved in many covert missions in our country targeting some ethnic groups for uprising. They also have been involved in some sabotage and mercenary activities, explosions in mosques and military bases.
See Part-2

[silverball]

DUH!!!!...."When Iraq attacked us"....i'm 62 years old and i'll be honest, i missed this event...can you post ANY link to support this "assertion"...opps, i meant BULLSHIT.......

[louisamast]

Part-2
5. Iran has attacked and occupied our two neighboring countries and spread their large navy including carriers and nuclear submarines on our shores.
6. Iran has been threatening us by initiating and supporting numerous economical sanctions and constantly repeating the phrase “all options are on the table”.
7. Iran with 6000+ nuclear warheads had made threats aiming many countries that have no nuclear arsenals.
8. Iran has installed and supported many dictatorial regimes around the world.
9. In 1988 when four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and still held in captivity by Israelis, they immediately attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
10. In 1998, when Taliban beheaded 11 Iranian diplomats sent to Afghanistan by Iranian government to initiate diplomacy, Iran immediately attacked Afghanistan with nuclear weapons.
But we are very RATIONAL nation. We do not take similar uncivilized actions that are mainly done by irrational RAGUE nations.

[silverball]

"But we are very RATIONAL nation. We do not take similar uncivilized actions that are mainly done by irrational RAGUE (sp - rogue) nations."....you ARE kidding, right???...ever hear of viet-nam and the gulf of tonkin incident that we lied about to justify invading the country (after supporting different invaders of that country from japan, france and then we jumped in)....or maybe you've heard of iraq and how our government lied and manipulated info to justify invading them....we over threw a democratically elected government in the 1950's to put "our" guy in (why do you think they had the revolution in 1979???....to take their country back, you fool...)...or maybe cuba rings a bell...or maybe all the interference in south america and central america...­.PALEEZE..­.get some facts before you vomit crap......

[Jim Pivonka - Huffpost Blogger]

It is a significant change in tone; the tone of our foreign policy has been in bad need of change and we can be grateful that it is happening.

The depth of the problem with the history and substance of US foreign policy will make moving beyond a change in tone, especially in places like Iran, where we forcibly removed the democratically elected government in the '50's and substituted a figurehead emperor of out choice who was out of sync with the Iranian people (they knew him and his family's history well enough).

So - they want an acknowledgement of our abuse of their nation in the past, in addition to this change in tone from Bush's more recent abuse. It may take them a good long time to come down from that horse - and Obama will be unable to apologize for US actions in the '50's.

This may take a while. But it is better than the BS belligerence that the neocons had Bush spouting.

It's a shame: as commenters have pointed out Iran would be a better ally, at least against the Salafist Taliban, in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We have to ask: Does Israel want to preserve Saudi influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Everyone knows Saudia is funding the Salafist madrasseh that are the root of the problem, and has been since the CIA brought them in during the Afghan War. For that matter, why does the US put up with continued Saudi subversion there?

[misaacm]

From the BBC:
...in separate Nowruz (Persian new year) messages to the Iranian people, neither Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor President Ahmadinejad mentioned Mr Obama's speech.
An adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Washington must reverse its support for Israel and end sanctions against Iran.

The adviser, Ali Akbar Javanfekr, also said the US had to apologise to Iran for its past actions.

So Obama says lets talk and the Iranian leaders ignore the opening and instead send out an aide to say....'first beg for forgiveness, throw Israel overboard and them we may start talking'.

This doesn't look like the beginning of a dialogue to me.

[skialethia]

In other words, Obama/Peres' greetings were empty rhetoric, not meant to be backed up by meaningful action and destined for the Iranian electorate, and no one's buying any of it.

I guess when we stop underestimating and insulting their intelligence, maybe they'll be willing to listen. Ya think???

The arrogance in your statement boggles the mind.

[misaacm]

No. I don't think the greetings were empty rhetoric I just don't think that the Iranian Mullahs, as opposed to the Iranian people, are interested in dialogue. They preferred the Bush style confrontation since it served their purposes. The fact that neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor President Ahmadinejad acknowledged Obama's message proves me right, though I hope I am wrong.

I guess that uneducated people like you think that disagreement and discussion is arrogance.

[silverball]

"..'first beg for forgiveness, etc, etc and them we may start talking'. ....if i didn't know any better i'd say that was shrub's message to the iranian....oh, but then we are the only country allowed to be so arrogant....get real....this country hasn't even TRIED diplomacy for the past 8 years.....are you suprised how they responded towards the FIRST overture??­?...what's that ancient asian saying?....a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step (or something like that)....we just took that step.....

[misaacm]

Shrub is gone. I agree he was an arrogant putz, but this was OBAMA calling the Iranians saying lets talk. Of course we will both have to compromise, but 1st we need to start a dialogue. The Iranian leadership would have none of it. They didn't even acknowledge his opening.

Much as Castro has benefited from an antagonistic relationship with the US, so has the Iranian leadership. Shrub never understood that, he played into their hands by acting belligerent. Obama is smarter, it will be a pleasant, unexpected surprise if the Iranian leadership responds in kind.

[LongTimeLiberal52]

At last - a breath of fresh air.

It's always seemed almost ridiculously obvious to me that there is nothing to be lost be LEADING with dialogue. The U.S. doesn't have to rattle its sabers for the world to know we have incredible military might. That fact, even unspoken, underlies every policy position we take in global affairs.

But we've witnessed all too well these past eight years the "effectiveness" of a foreign policy based on "shoot first and ask questions later." It's actually a relief to know that President Obama is willing to extend a hand to Tehran, and (not coincidentally) appeal to the moderate voices in Iran that may well vote Ahmadinejad and his political allies out of office.

As I said, there's nothing to lose - and everything to be gained. Thank heavens the Crawford Cowboy is gone, and we have a real leader in the White House, someone who understands that confrontation should always be our LAST resort.

[misaacm]

I like the idea of turning down the rhetoric and temperature, so I support Pres. Obama's outreach to Iran. However, I doubt that his offering of an "unclenched hand" will be welcomed any more than it was with his political enemies at home. The Mullahs who run Iran need a hostile relationship with the US to keep their power. The Persians, as with the Arabs, know that their people will demand democracy and economic progress if they are not distracted by enemies, real and exaggerated.

Oil is under $50/barrel, Iran needs it above $70 to keep subsidizing their economy. With 25% unemployment the pressure is on them. I would be surprised if they took this opportunity to open up to the West, but I could be convinced otherwise. I think that Iran will instead try to create a crisis which will lead to a spike in oil prices. The Mullahs love their own power above all.

[louisamast]

You have no clue what you are talking about. You are only spreading or repeating rumors. That is all empty old rhetoric and most people are sick of hearing it anymore. Your knowledge of ME is very very poor and distorted.

[misaacm]

If you had given reasonable counter arguments you might have made your point. Instead you sound like a petulant child.

BTW, I have lived extensively in the ME and will be returning there this month, have you?

[sol313]

I have lived in the Middle East, specifically Iran, for almost ten years, and I have extensive family there. Yes, a lot of people have serious issues with the government, but probably less so than most thinking Americans did during the Bush reign. And the people by and large still identify with their government, so the idea that Iran is some kind of oligarchy of "Mullahs" is almost comically childish.
The Iranian people have both national and religious pride, and they are likely to view Obama's condescending tone with some healthy skepticism, even if they do hope for better relations with America.
If anyone sounds like a petulant--not to mention ignorant--child, it's you, and maybe you ought to either substantiate what you write or at the very least stop pretending that having lived in the Middle East makes you some sort of credible authority.

[Mollabaji]

O.K. President Obama, nice words. The world supports you in your effort to change U.S. policy towards Iran.
Now it is time for action. As a first step, unfreeze the millions of dollars in Iranian national assets that were frozen after the 1979 revolution. Then drop the false accusation that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Third, drop sanctions imposed on Iran. Fourth, send a more credible person than Hillary to Tehran for face to face talks.

[louisamast]

dream dream dream!
Israel will NOT allow any peace between US and Iran to take place. When it comes to Iran, Israel’s interests and American interests do not overlap. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations are ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequently there would be no longer any incentive for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. Therefore every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel’s special interest groups such as AIPAC &Associates. To dig this further, one has look into “who” inserted Iran’s name in the GWB 2002 States of Union Speech with other “axis of evil” just before he delivered his speech!!!!!

[misaacm]

Michael Gerson wrote the phrase "Axis of evil", what does that prove when attached to your your crazy "AIPAC rules the world" rant?