Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

by **greencrow0** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:35 pm

Can anyone cut and paste a copy of the letter to George Bush from the Iranian President onto this thread? I cannot seem to open up the english translation version on Le Monde where it is located. Thanks. GC

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:38 pm

CNN.com has it here: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/">transcript</a> It seems to be an image so I can't C&P text. Where did Le Monde get this, I wonder? I thought the contents of the letter were still secret.

by **greencrow0** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:54 pm

Hi Ike The CNN version is not a complete translation, just truncated excerpts from the first page, badly translated and obviously mis-translated as in the propaganda about Iraqis being happy that Saddam was defeated [highly doubtful this was in the letter]. There is a complete translation offered by Le Monde, which some people on other forums report they've opened and read. I am not able to open it, likely due to the multiple viruses on my computer. Could you or one of the other forumists please open the Le Monde translation and cut and paste it here? Thanks a lot. Regards, GC Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 5/9/06 12:55 pm

by **albion** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:56 pm

Chris Floyd has the Le Monde translation: <a href="http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=641&Itemid=1">www.chris-floyd.com/index...1&Itemid=1</a> Text of the Ahmadinejad letter: Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them. Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make “War and Terror” his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families. On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West. Mr President, You might know that I am a teacher.My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness. There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values. Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained? Mr President, I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established: - Many thousands were killed in the process. - Millions of indigenous people were made refugees. - Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed. This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory. Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government. If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?” Mr President, As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies. It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations. You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed. Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to. Mr President, Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter. Mr President, September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies. All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq. Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well? Mr President, In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them. The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?” As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns. Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not? Mr President, How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments? Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world. The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran). Mr President, According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. “To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. ” “The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. ” “The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”, “He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. ” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves. ” We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium. Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers. The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans. We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious. ” All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well. Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions. All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets? Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him. Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies. The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations. Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?” Mr President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things. Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:00 pm

edit - Yeargh! Looks like albion posted it first and better formatted. I'm deleting what I C&P'ed from Le Monde. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ikebroflovski@rigorousintuition>Ike Broflovski</A> at: 5/9/06 1:03 pm

by **FourthBase** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:09 pm

Great letter except for the theocracy vs. democracy part at the end.

by **professorpan** » Tue May 09, 2006 3:52 pm

Yeah, he was doing a damn good job of indicting the current occupant of the White House until he brought in the plug for Theocracy. Religion + politics = lots of dead people. Let's hear it for secular humanism!

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:01 pm

Thanks for the translation -- I hadn't read it yet. VERY interesting. Isn't it peculiar, all this time, for months and months, Bush has been saying he's all in favor of talks, but he never actually bothered to open frank dialogue with Iran. He did the same thing with Iraq in the months leading up to the disasterous, criminal decision to attack and kill and invade. In essence, sabotaging dialogue and negotiation by refusing to discuss difference -- thus making violence a default 'solution'. I don't think there's a sufficiently expressive word for this kind of malicious, despicable evil. Cripes, and ain't that something -- when the attested 'enemy' of one's nations comes across as a wise, compassionate and greatly principled leader, asking difficult, probing, important questions central to the great issues of peace and justice vs war and calamity, in contrast to one's own president who stands revealed as a petty, blithering, disingenous, truculent and loutish fool. By subtle intimation, and only by inference, Ahmadinejad identifies the very core of the 'problem' that America faces -- the failure of its putative leadership to recognize, and be faithful to, their prime responsibility: "All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens." Our 'leaders' are richly deserving of their nation's profound contempt and revulsion. But then, and after all, Bush is a faithful representative of America's numerous contradictions, moral cowardice, and hypocrisy. America today is NOT the nation it could be, or even presumes to be. Starman

by **Ike Broflovski** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:17 pm

Bush has been saying he's all in favor of talks, but he never actually bothered to open frank dialogue with Iran. Not officially or publicly, at least. Some say the US and Iran have quietly been discussing the resolution of the Iraq situation for some time.

by **greencrow0** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:20 pm

Thanks VERY MUCH for the translation. Something is not adding up, however. The preamble published by the MSM said that the Iranian President made proposals in his letter for different ways of doing things. I do not see those in this letter. I believe [like juan cole] that the letter could have been edited and/or mis-translated. I am shocked by NO mention of the upcoming OIL bourse. GC

by **albion** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:35 pm

Some say the US and Iran have quietly been discussing the resolution of the Iraq situation for some time. Yes, in particular I have consistently seen references to a Swiss "back channel," with little elaboration. (Apparently the recent letter appeared via a Swiss ambassador.) For example, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/05/08/afx2730301.html">Forbes</a>: "The Swiss embassy in Tehran has been acting as a conduit for messages since 1981." I wonder what that's all about?

by **Mentalgongfu** » Tue May 09, 2006 11:37 pm

when no one listens or those who do misquote or mistranslate you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Isn't it peculiar, all this time, for months and months, Bush has been saying he's all in favor of talks, but he never actually bothered to open frank dialogue with Iran. He did the same thing with Iraq in the months leading up to the disasterous, criminal decision to attack and kill and invade. In essence, sabotaging dialogue and negotiation by refusing to discuss difference -- thus making violence a default 'solution'.<hr></blockquote> Exactly. Opening up a real discussion would make it appear as if Iran was a legitimate player and has legitimate points to make. The only discussion which would be accepted would have to be based on the terms Iran agree to everything the U.S. wants (stop nuclear energy work, but what else?) hands-down. Iran won't do that, and I don't think the current administration would allow it to happen, even if Iran was willing to consider bowing to U.S. pressure.

by **greencrow0** » Tue May 09, 2006 11:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The only discussion which would be accepted would have to be based on the terms Iran agree to everything the U.S. wants.<hr></blockquote> ======================= Right, even if Iran agreed to 'regime change' it wouldn't be enough. GC

by **OnoI812** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:36 am

jUST as I suspected! He's LIHOP/MIHOP... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess<hr></blockquote>

by **Byrne** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:52 am

From the UK Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1771366,00.html" target="top">www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1771366,00.html</a> <hr /> If this is Ahmadinejad's bluff, it is bluff worth calling The only route to regime change and disarmament is engagement, so the US must respond to this week's letter from Tehran Simon Jenkins Wednesday May 10, 2006 The Guardian For a British foreign secretary Iraq is easy. It has been Tony Blair's personal, colossal, hubristic, career-wrecking mistake, and the Foreign Office need only sit by and brush his tears with tissues. Iran is different. Iran is hard, as the new foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, clearly found in New York on Monday. Conventional wisdom can be summed up in a simple declaration that a nuclear Iran one day may be undesirable but not half as undesirable as a war on any scale likely to prevent it. Other things being equal, only arms salesmen welcome nuclear proliferation. But for America and Britain to extend military operations from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran and start bombing would be, as Jack Straw said, inconceivable and "nuts". But other things are never equal. The undesirability of a nuclear Iran is supposedly enforced by an international treaty to which that country still claims to subscribe. Though the treaty is all but defunct, its goals remain laudable. Besides, elements within Iran's ever-shifting coalition are known to be alarmed by the fundamentalist outbursts of President Ahmadinejad and his nuclear-enrichment boasts. How can those elements be helped? Might a few threats not do the trick? Iran is a complex and sophisticated nation that offers more plausible diplomatic pressure points than ever did Saddam's Iraq. While Ahmadinejad may eat, drink and make merry on the Pentagon's ineptitude, he must look warily over his shoulder at his boss, Ayatollah Khamenei; at Iran's national security council under the more temperate Ali Larijani, whom Ahmadinejad does not control; and at his old foe, Akbar Rafsanjani. A detailed survey of US-Iranian relations in March's New Yorker revealed the full extent of bilateral contacts until they were stymied, first by Bush's 2003 neocon national security directive and then by his ham-fisted intervention in the 2005 Iranian election, which helped Ahmadinejad to power. Even today there are plenty of Iranians who want no quarrel with America, and certainly not with America, Russia and China together. It is probably they who forced Ahmadinejad to send Monday's dovish letter to Washington, to which the Republican head of the Senate foreign relations committee, Richard Lugar, thinks America should respond. This is the "engagement" strategy that Straw was adopting, to the increasing dismay of Blair and the White House, when he was toppled. Its shortcoming was to lack the belligerent machismo that is the default mode of London and Washington - and now of Ahmadinejad in Tehran. Just as the latter is Bush's ideal raving Islamicist, so Bush is the latter's ideal raving western imperialist. The collapse of the occupation of Iraq offers Tehran a daily foretaste of the glory awaiting Iran's soldiers and their surrogate militias across the Middle East should America launch an attack. Each sabre rattled in Washington is music to the army's ears, as it bids to spend Iran's swollen oil revenues on rearmament. The trouble with big-stick diplomacy in this case is that its implied deterrence is implausible. There is no conceivable justification for a military attack on Iran when Bush's own intelligence chief, John Negroponte, puts a minimum of "five to 10 years" on its acquisition of weapons-grade plutonium. Bombing factories might impede this but not stop it from happening sooner or later, and would clearly induce Tehran to make that sooner. But then even Russia at its most paranoid and North Korea at its craziest never used nuclear bombs. They are not weapons or deterrents, merely status symbols. And America's acceptance of them in the hands of Pakistan, India and Israel is a gift to the xenophobic rabble-rousers of Tehran. Washington can spend millions on pirate Tehran broadcasts, but moderate Iranians are crying to the west to stop bolstering Ahmadinejad. It is doing to him what it did to Saddam, putting him on television every night as a global champion of Islam. The one hope of curbing his rhetorical excesses is for his own people to rein him in, and that cannot happen when the west continues to make him regional hero number one. Bush seems unable to comprehend that his castigating a Muslim leader is not an insult but an accolade. Everything I have read and heard about Iran suggests it is a nation to be approached with wary realism. The west has always misunderstood Tehran, always backed the wrong leader. It is now paying a terrible price for not supporting Iran in its war with Iraq. This oil-rich state of some 60m people may be administratively chaotic, but it is socially and politically subtle. Oil from anywhere will always find a market, but Egypt and Iran are two regional powers with whom a sane west should stay engaged. In the argot of old Washington, whoever rules in Tehran should be "our fundamentalist". Bush and Blair have given Ahmadinejad a remarkable hand of cards. He can now impose his own economic and military sanctions on the west. He can force up the price of oil and traumatise insurance premiums in the Strait of Hormuz. While his control over the Shia brigades in Iraq may be overstated, he can orchestrate lethal pressure on the occupying forces and watch as public opinion in Britain and America devastates their leaders. The realpolitik of this part of the world is that the US and Britain badly need Iran's cooperation. They need it to get out of Iraq, and somehow to police the collapse and partition of that benighted country. They have no need of new enemies. So when Ahmadinejad, at whoever's instigation, writes a letter inviting talks, it is a good idea to reply. If it is bluff, it is bluff worth calling. The present shouting match is megaphone appeasement, as would be a bomb attack on Iran's factories. The hawkish route to disarmament and regime change - if such is the goal - can only be through constructive engagement. There is, of course, one thing that Britain and America could do that would wholly disorientate Ahmadinejad and have him rushing troops to his borders. It would be a sudden end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a decision would remove at a stroke the running theme of Iranian militancy. It would saddle Tehran with two unstable neighbours whose insurgents and revanchists would cause it, its allies and its surrogates no end of trouble. After a bit of initial crowing the next Iraq will be Ahmadinejad's nightmare. Unfortunately such a step seems too clever by half for the west's present leadership. simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk <hr />

Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

you can't have dialogue

Re: you can't have dialogue

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Re: Translation of Iranian Presidents Letter?

Who is online