Iran’s President reaches out to the American people
By: Anthony McRoy (PhD)
Source : The Birght Future News Agency
Iran’s President reaches out to the American people
Dr. Anthony McRoy
The possibility of some restrained form of rapprochement between America and Iran received a boost at the end of November with a letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad to the American people – and please note, the letter was addressed to the US public, not their government. Ahmadinejad called for a dialogue with the American people, based on the ‘urgency’ of the negative consequences of ‘the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries’.
The ‘calamities’ the President had in mind included Iraq, where ‘hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially.’ Clearly, Ahmadinejad is seeking to build on the US public’s exasperation with the ever-deteriorating situation that has sapped support for the occupation. He also accused the US government of deceit: ‘The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.’ Of course, this is what many people in the West have concluded, and Ahmadinejad seeks to capitalise upon this.
Ahmadinejad cleverly invokes the style of Vietnam-era discontent of families with relatives in Iraq acting as sitting ducks for jihadi target practice: ‘In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.’
The major foreign policy issue he raises is Palestine, where he states that Iranians, like Americans, ‘are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people.’ Referring to ‘Persistent aggressions by the Zionists’, he condemned the latter for ‘bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.’ The interesting aspect of this message is encapsulated by his comment on the Palestine crisis: ‘Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn’t?’
This has not received the attention it should have done. Ahmadinejad has shown that his approach is startlingly different from that of Bin Laden, who attacks the American public as being jointly responsible with their government for negative US policies. There is no ‘us and them’ in Ahmadinejad’s message, no denunciation of the American people as ‘crusaders’ or even as ‘infidels’, nor any mention of ‘the Great Satan’. Instead, Ahmadinejad, has emphasised the common values and concerns of the Iranian and American peoples: ‘human values…have brought our two great nations…closer together. Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking…’
Parts of this statement could not have been made to a European audience. One tour guide in Iran commented to me that ‘God is dead in Europe’, because of the high degree of secularism and even atheism, but America is a place of high church attendance, where Evangelicals are a powerful, if diffuse, constituency. Ahmadinejad is clearly aware of this and hopes to draw parallels with Iran’s religiosity. However, this is probably lost on Americans, who definitely will not understand the implicit reference to the Mahdi in the introduction to the letter: ‘O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.’ Most Americans (and Britons!) don’t have a clue about the Mahdi. Ahmadinejad also appeals to American historical self-understanding: the USA was forged in a nationalist/ideological revolution on the basis of liberty and popular sovereignty, as was the Islamic Republic. On this basis, Ahmadinejad sees common values between the two peoples.
It is on the basis of American values that he reminds the US public of perhaps its greatest shame in recent years – the Abu Ghraib scandal: ‘You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.’ Again, Ahmadinejad does not descend into culturally racist or sectarian insults, as is all too common with Muslim critics of America, but rather asserts that these outrages by the US government were betrayals of traditional American values that demeans international perceptions of the US. In PR terms, this is a marked improvement on critical statements from other Islamic sources.
Obviously, Ahmadinejad is aware of US public discontent with their government, as evidenced by recent elections, and seeks to use this by encouraging the people to seek a dialogue with Iran: ‘Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behaviour and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.’ The question is, with the American public heed the call?
An article in ‘The New York Times’ referred to the message, but one wonders how many Americans will have read it or taken it seriously. President Bush is hugely unpopular in the Muslim world, and his comments at the UN lambasting Iran, Syria and Hezbollah certainly boosted them; indeed, his support is the kiss of death for any opposition movements in the region. However, Ahmadinejad has had a bad press in the West. Although Iranian sources have pointed out that his comments have been grossly distorted, even apart from this the comments of any Iranian leader – indeed, any Muslim leader – will hardly carry any wait. Partly this is because of Islamophobia, but with Iran, Americans remember above all the 1979-80 US Embassy hostage ordeal, where American diplomats were held captive for 444 days.
The event poisons popular American attitudes to Iran – and indeed, Islam. Of course, Iranians point out that it occurred during the fervour of the unsettled revolutionary period, and was also a reaction to the 1953 US-UK coup against Premier Mossadeq. Thereafter the US embassy was seen as the ‘Den of Spies’, and almost as a colonial governor’s mansion. However, the US public is generally unaware of this, and see only the violation of international law and the suffering of their compatriots. Ironically, this is exactly how Iranians see the 1953 coup and its murderous effects, which led to a 25-year reign of terror, and led to America being characterised as ‘the Great Satan’.
In one sense, the message is nothing new: Ahmadinejad points out that he gave a similar message to President Bush last year, and he has made many calls for dialogue since, such as at the International Mahdism Conference this year. When, with some other delegates, I met Ahmadinejad at the Presidential home one night, I suggested a meeting between him and US Evangelical leaders to discuss both contemporary and historical difficulties between the two peoples, and I specifically mentioned the 1953 coup and the 1979 embassy issue. The President declared that the American people were ‘respectable’, and that Iran had no quarrel with them as such, but merely with the policies of their government.
The US Embassy kindly supplied me with the response of State Dept. Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey, who dismissed the message as a PR stunt, and stated that at any rate, the main issues with Iran remained its support for Hezbollah, ‘Palestinian rejectionist groups’ and ‘its continued defiance of the international community’s efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear program’. Perhaps this points to another underlying cause of the letter: it is known that the Iraq Study Group will probably recommend that America reach out to Iran and Syria over Iraq. Although we have heard comments from both US and UK government sources about how it is in the self-interest of these countries to help stabilise Iraq, and how if Iran wants to be involved it must support the ‘Middle East Peace Process’ and abandon its nuclear aspirations, it is clear that Iran will do neither. Its support for Hezbollah has made it massively popular across the Arab world, and there is virtual unanimity in Iran about the nuclear issue, as much a question of Iranian patriotism as Islamic fervour.
Hence, Iran will not change on these issues and it sees no need to do so: America needs Iran over Iraq – and perhaps even Lebanon and Palestine – far more than Iran needs America. In one sense, this letter could be seen partly as a gesture at face-saving for the American government. Ahmadinejad has given them an opportunity to respond to his invitation to dialogue, rather than America inviting Iran’s help. By appealing to the people, he possibly hopes to strengthen public support for the call of the Iraq Study Group. Moreover, whilst in Iran I found Iranians at both official and popular levels to be as antagonistic to Al-Qaida as are Americans. On this basis, ‘common interests’ may be more important than possible ‘common values’.
If no movement is possible on the conditions the US administration is demanding, one possibility suggests itself: that Iran offer to apologise for the 1979 Embassy crisis if America apologises for the 1953 coup. It is the Embassy hostage issue that is arguably the greatest irritant in US popular hostility to Iran, and if this could be addressed, on the proviso of US repentance about the 1953 coup, the way may be clear for a US-Iran dialogue.
Dr. Anthony McRoy
The possibility of some restrained form of rapprochement between America and Iran received a boost at the end of November with a letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad to the American people – and please note, the letter was addressed to the US public, not their government. Ahmadinejad called for a dialogue with the American people, based on the ‘urgency’ of the negative consequences of ‘the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries’.
The ‘calamities’ the President had in mind included Iraq, where ‘hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially.’ Clearly, Ahmadinejad is seeking to build on the US public’s exasperation with the ever-deteriorating situation that has sapped support for the occupation. He also accused the US government of deceit: ‘The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.’ Of course, this is what many people in the West have concluded, and Ahmadinejad seeks to capitalise upon this.
Ahmadinejad cleverly invokes the style of Vietnam-era discontent of families with relatives in Iraq acting as sitting ducks for jihadi target practice: ‘In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.’
The major foreign policy issue he raises is Palestine, where he states that Iranians, like Americans, ‘are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people.’ Referring to ‘Persistent aggressions by the Zionists’, he condemned the latter for ‘bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.’ The interesting aspect of this message is encapsulated by his comment on the Palestine crisis: ‘Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn’t?’
This has not received the attention it should have done. Ahmadinejad has shown that his approach is startlingly different from that of Bin Laden, who attacks the American public as being jointly responsible with their government for negative US policies. There is no ‘us and them’ in Ahmadinejad’s message, no denunciation of the American people as ‘crusaders’ or even as ‘infidels’, nor any mention of ‘the Great Satan’. Instead, Ahmadinejad, has emphasised the common values and concerns of the Iranian and American peoples: ‘human values…have brought our two great nations…closer together. Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking…’
Parts of this statement could not have been made to a European audience. One tour guide in Iran commented to me that ‘God is dead in Europe’, because of the high degree of secularism and even atheism, but America is a place of high church attendance, where Evangelicals are a powerful, if diffuse, constituency. Ahmadinejad is clearly aware of this and hopes to draw parallels with Iran’s religiosity. However, this is probably lost on Americans, who definitely will not understand the implicit reference to the Mahdi in the introduction to the letter: ‘O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.’ Most Americans (and Britons!) don’t have a clue about the Mahdi. Ahmadinejad also appeals to American historical self-understanding: the USA was forged in a nationalist/ideological revolution on the basis of liberty and popular sovereignty, as was the Islamic Republic. On this basis, Ahmadinejad sees common values between the two peoples.
It is on the basis of American values that he reminds the US public of perhaps its greatest shame in recent years – the Abu Ghraib scandal: ‘You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.’ Again, Ahmadinejad does not descend into culturally racist or sectarian insults, as is all too common with Muslim critics of America, but rather asserts that these outrages by the US government were betrayals of traditional American values that demeans international perceptions of the US. In PR terms, this is a marked improvement on critical statements from other Islamic sources.
Obviously, Ahmadinejad is aware of US public discontent with their government, as evidenced by recent elections, and seeks to use this by encouraging the people to seek a dialogue with Iran: ‘Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behaviour and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.’ The question is, with the American public heed the call?
An article in ‘The New York Times’ referred to the message, but one wonders how many Americans will have read it or taken it seriously. President Bush is hugely unpopular in the Muslim world, and his comments at the UN lambasting Iran, Syria and Hezbollah certainly boosted them; indeed, his support is the kiss of death for any opposition movements in the region. However, Ahmadinejad has had a bad press in the West. Although Iranian sources have pointed out that his comments have been grossly distorted, even apart from this the comments of any Iranian leader – indeed, any Muslim leader – will hardly carry any wait. Partly this is because of Islamophobia, but with Iran, Americans remember above all the 1979-80 US Embassy hostage ordeal, where American diplomats were held captive for 444 days.
The event poisons popular American attitudes to Iran – and indeed, Islam. Of course, Iranians point out that it occurred during the fervour of the unsettled revolutionary period, and was also a reaction to the 1953 US-UK coup against Premier Mossadeq. Thereafter the US embassy was seen as the ‘Den of Spies’, and almost as a colonial governor’s mansion. However, the US public is generally unaware of this, and see only the violation of international law and the suffering of their compatriots. Ironically, this is exactly how Iranians see the 1953 coup and its murderous effects, which led to a 25-year reign of terror, and led to America being characterised as ‘the Great Satan’.
In one sense, the message is nothing new: Ahmadinejad points out that he gave a similar message to President Bush last year, and he has made many calls for dialogue since, such as at the International Mahdism Conference this year. When, with some other delegates, I met Ahmadinejad at the Presidential home one night, I suggested a meeting between him and US Evangelical leaders to discuss both contemporary and historical difficulties between the two peoples, and I specifically mentioned the 1953 coup and the 1979 embassy issue. The President declared that the American people were ‘respectable’, and that Iran had no quarrel with them as such, but merely with the policies of their government.
The US Embassy kindly supplied me with the response of State Dept. Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey, who dismissed the message as a PR stunt, and stated that at any rate, the main issues with Iran remained its support for Hezbollah, ‘Palestinian rejectionist groups’ and ‘its continued defiance of the international community’s efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear program’. Perhaps this points to another underlying cause of the letter: it is known that the Iraq Study Group will probably recommend that America reach out to Iran and Syria over Iraq. Although we have heard comments from both US and UK government sources about how it is in the self-interest of these countries to help stabilise Iraq, and how if Iran wants to be involved it must support the ‘Middle East Peace Process’ and abandon its nuclear aspirations, it is clear that Iran will do neither. Its support for Hezbollah has made it massively popular across the Arab world, and there is virtual unanimity in Iran about the nuclear issue, as much a question of Iranian patriotism as Islamic fervour.
Hence, Iran will not change on these issues and it sees no need to do so: America needs Iran over Iraq – and perhaps even Lebanon and Palestine – far more than Iran needs America. In one sense, this letter could be seen partly as a gesture at face-saving for the American government. Ahmadinejad has given them an opportunity to respond to his invitation to dialogue, rather than America inviting Iran’s help. By appealing to the people, he possibly hopes to strengthen public support for the call of the Iraq Study Group. Moreover, whilst in Iran I found Iranians at both official and popular levels to be as antagonistic to Al-Qaida as are Americans. On this basis, ‘common interests’ may be more important than possible ‘common values’.
If no movement is possible on the conditions the US administration is demanding, one possibility suggests itself: that Iran offer to apologise for the 1979 Embassy crisis if America apologises for the 1953 coup. It is the Embassy hostage issue that is arguably the greatest irritant in US popular hostility to Iran, and if this could be addressed, on the proviso of US repentance about the 1953 coup, the way may be clear for a US-Iran dialogue.
     |
