[Peace-discuss] Iran 's response

[Brussel Morton K.]

By Phil Wilato, who just last week paid a visit to us.  His article  
ends with the following remark:

So what was the real purpose of President Obama's Nowruz message to  
the Iranian people and its government?

     A March 21 Wall Street Journal story on the Nowruz address offers  
one possible explanation:

     "Senior US officials say [Obama's] administration wants to  
persuade the world that it is different from President George W. Bush  
and is going the extra mile to give Iran a chance. If Tehran rebuffs  
the overtures and sticks to its nuclear program, Washington can more  
easily seek broad support for coercive measures, such as financial  
sanctions or even potential military action, they say." (4)

     In light of all this, Ayatollah Khamenei's "rebuff" of Obama's  
olive branch might seem eminently reasonable.

--mkb


Did Iran Reject Obama's Overture?

Wednesday 25 March 2009

by: Phil Wilayto, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

     Iran's response to a supposedly conciliatory address March 20 by  
President Barack Obama has been met with a torrent of "we-told-you- 
so's" by the US media.

     The Los Angeles Times reported that Iran's Supreme Leader,  
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had simply "dismissed President Obama's  
extraordinary Persian New Year greeting ..."

     The Christian Science Monitor said the president's gesture had  
been "greeted coolly" by Khamenei.

     And an Associated Press report carried by, among others, The New  
York Times, called Khamenei's response a "rebuff" that "was swift and  
sweeping."

     Was it?

     President Obama used the occasion of Nowruz, the Iranian New  
Year, to issue a message to both the Iranian people and its government  
that was noteworthy both for its tone and much of its substance.  
Implicitly rejecting the arrogant bellicosity of the Cheney-Bush  
years, the president stressed that his administration "is now  
committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before  
us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran  
and the international community."

     Specifically, Obama reiterated his already-stated preference for  
diplomacy over the threat of military force. "This process [pursuing  
constructive ties] will not be advanced by threats," he said. "We seek  
instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

     President Obama's remarks were considered highly unusual for  
several reasons. First, instead of attempting, like President George  
W. Bush before him, to go over the heads of Iran's government and talk  
"directly" to the Iranian people, Obama pointedly directed his remarks  
to both the Iranian people and their government. And he referred to  
the country by its official name, the Islamic Republic of Iran,  
implicitly recognizing the legitimacy of that government. And he  
stated that the US wants Iran "to take its rightful place in the  
community of nations," acknowledging that "You have that right ..."

     So why was Iran's response so negative?

     Well, first of all, it wasn't.

     The office of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was among the  
first to respond to Obama's "overture."

     In a statement to Press TV, Iran's English-language television  
channel, presidential aide Ali-Akbar Javanfekr said, "If Mr. Obama  
takes concrete action and makes fundamental changes in US foreign  
policy towards other nations, including Iran, the Iranian government  
and people won't turn their back on him."

     As reported by the Iranian Fars News Agency, Iran's Foreign  
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on Obama's address, saying, "We  
are glad that Nowruz has been a source for friendship and we are  
pleased that the Nowruz message is a message for coexistence, peace  
and friendship for the whole world."

     Press TV itself reported on President Obama's address in a March  
20 online article titled "Obama scores points with Iran message,"  
noting that "his remarks, a significant departure from the tone of the  
previous administration, were well-received around the globe." The  
news channel also carried a link to Obama's address.

     The US media generally focused on the response by Iran's Supreme  
Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is not only the  
country's top religious leader but also its military commander-in-chief.

     Addressing a large crowd on March 22 in his home town of Mashhad  
in northeastern Iran, the ayatollah touched on Obama's remarks, noting  
that "Of course, we have no prior experience of the new president of  
the American republic and of the government, and therefore we shall  
make our judgment based on his actions."

     Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but neither was it a cold  
rebuff or dismissal.

     Khamenei went on to list some of the major Iranian complaints  
against the US, including 30 years of sanctions that include the  
seizure of important Iranian assets; supporting Saddam Hussein in his  
1980 invasion of Iran, an act of aggression that led to an eight-year  
war and "300,000 Iranian martyrs;" the US government's continuing  
unconditional support for Israel; the loss of nearly 300 civilian  
lives in the 1988 downing of an Iranian airbus by the USS Vincennes  
warship, an air disaster the US called an accident but one for which  
it has never apologized; and alleged US support for anti-Iranian  
terrorist attacks along the Iran-Pakistan border.

     "Could the Iranian nation forget these tragedies?" Khamenei asked  
his audience.

     The Fars agency reported that "Ayatollah Khamenei noted that the  
American new government says that it has stretched its hands towards  
Iran, and we say if cast-iron hands have been hidden under a velvety  
glove, so this move would be in vain."

     Then, according to Fars, came the nub of the Iranian response:  
"Pointing to America's message over the new Iranian year, Ayatollah  
Khamenei said they even had accused Iran of supporting terror and  
seeking nuclear weapons. He asked if it [Obama's Nowruz greeting] is a  
congratulation or continuation of the same accusations."

     Good point. In his address, President Obama wrapped this chestnut  
in the soothing message of conciliation: "The United States wants the  
Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community  
of nations. You have that right - but it comes with real  
responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or  
arms [my emphasis - P.W.], but rather through peaceful actions that  
demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

     So President Obama, like Bush before him, is still accusing Iran  
of promoting terrorism and relying on "arms," an obvious reference to  
charges that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, charges  
Iran has repeatedly rejected.

     As the ayatollah asked, was Obama's Nowruz greeting "a  
congratulation or continuation of the same accusations"?

     And is it unreasonable to declare, as Khamenei did in his speech  
in Mashhad, that Iran will evaluate the Obama administration based on  
its actions?

     Some of those actions are already clear.

     Earlier in March, President Obama formally extended by one year a  
set of unilateral sanctions against Iran that were first imposed in  
1995 by President Bill Clinton. Not exactly a confidence-building  
measure for the Iranians.

     But not a departure from Obama policy, either. In his Senate  
confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy  
Geithner came out strongly in favor of the Bush policy of increasingly  
repressive sanctions against Iran.

     "I agree wholeheartedly that the Department of the Treasury has  
done outstanding work in ratcheting up the pressure on Iran," Geithner  
told members of the Senate Finance Committee, "both by vigorously  
enforcing our sanctions against Iran and by sharing information with  
key financial actors around the world about how Iran's deceptive  
conduct poses a threat to the integrity of the financial system."

     Interesting. So it was Iran whose actions were threatening the  
financial system - not AIG, Citicorp or Bernard Madoff.

     "If confirmed as secretary of the Treasury," Geithner continued,  
"I would consider the full range of tools available to the US  
Department of the Treasury, including unilateral measures, to prevent  
Iran from misusing the financial system to engage in proliferation and  
terrorism."

     Then there's Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  
During her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton  
felt it necessary to say she would "obliterate" Iran if it were to  
attack Israel.

     During his campaign, Obama himself repeatedly stated that, in  
dealing with Iran, military force would always be an option.

     Further, Obama's point man on Iran at the State Department is  
Dennis Ross, a longtime supporter of Israel who subscribes to the  
neocon belief that Iran's president "sees himself as an instrument for  
accelerating the coming of the 12th Imam - which is preceded in the  
mythology by the equivalent of Armageddon." (1)

     Ross, by the way, is a co-founder of the Washington Institute for  
Near East Policy, which includes on its board of advisors such  
luminaries as former secretaries of state Alexander Haig and Henry A.  
Kissinger, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, former  
Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey and, at its  
founding, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick.

     The Institute recently released a "Presidential Study Group  
Report" titled "Preventing a Cascade of Instability: US Engagement to  
Check Iranian Nuclear Progress." The report calls for increasing  
pressure on Iran to force it to end its nuclear program: "If  
engagement fails to produce an agreement, a strategy of tightening  
economic sanctions and international political pressure in conjunction  
with all other policy instruments [Emphasis added - P.W.] provides a  
basis for long-term containment of Iran's nuclear ambitions." (2)

     Of course, the report doesn't mention that Iran has a sovereign  
right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, a right  
recognized by the United Nations because Iran is a signatory to the  
UN's Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. The NPT's inspection  
arm, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has carried out repeated  
and extensive inspections of Iran's nuclear program and each time has  
concluded that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. That  
evaluation was seconded in November 2007 by the 16 US intelligence  
agencies in their annual National Intelligence Estimate - their annual  
evaluation of potential threats to the US.

     And yet the charge of a secret nuclear weapons program continues  
under the Obama administration, as it did under Bush.

     It's a charge heavily aided by the media.

     The Associated Press, a US-based, nationally oriented news  
service, produces and/or circulates news stories published by more  
than 1,700 newspapers, plus more than 5,000 television and radio  
broadcasters. It also operates The Associated Press Radio Network,  
which provides newscasts for broadcast and satellite stations.

     In other words, it has juice.

     And this is how the AP, which regularly refers vaguely and  
therefore deceptively to "Iran's nuclear ambitions," covered the  
Iranian reaction to Obama's Nowruz greetings:

     "... Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response was more  
than just a dismissive slap at the outreach. It was a broad lesson in  
the mind-set of Iran's all-powerful theocracy and how it will dictate  
the pace and tone of any new steps by Obama to chip away at their  
nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze."

     That's supposed to be a news report, by the way, not an op-ed  
piece.

     The AP report, by longtime AP reporter Brian Murphy, went on to  
quote a series of "experts" on Iran, including Patrick Clawson, deputy  
director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Ilan  
Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy  
Council.

     We've already discussed the Washington Institute.

     Ilan Berman has consulted for both the US Central Intelligence  
Agency and the US Department of Defense. He's also a member of the  
reconstituted Cold War-era Committee on the Present Danger, which  
includes among its illustrious roster former Commentary editor Norman  
Podhoretz, a "leading writer and ideologue of the nonconservative  
political faction since the group began to emerge in the late  
1960s." (3)

     So what can we conclude from all this?

     The Obama administration, just like the Bush regime before it, is  
demanding that Iran end its pursuit of nuclear power, an effort it  
claims is a cover for producing nuclear weapons. It provides no  
evidence for its accusation, and neither can the UN's nuclear  
proliferation inspection agency or any of the 16 US intelligence  
agencies. And Iran, as a signatory to the UN's NPT, has every right to  
pursue nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes.

     But yet the Obama administration demands that Iran end that legal  
program. To which Iran's leaders say, not surprisingly, "No."

     So what was the real purpose of President Obama's Nowruz message  
to the Iranian people and its government?

     A March 21 Wall Street Journal story on the Nowruz address offers  
one possible explanation:

     "Senior US officials say [Obama's] administration wants to  
persuade the world that it is different from President George W. Bush  
and is going the extra mile to give Iran a chance. If Tehran rebuffs  
the overtures and sticks to its nuclear program, Washington can more  
easily seek broad support for coercive measures, such as financial  
sanctions or even potential military action, they say." (4)

     In light of all this, Ayatollah Khamenei's "rebuff" of Obama's  
olive branch might seem eminently reasonable.


     Notes:

     (1) "A New Strategy on Iran" by Dennis Ross, May 1, 2006, The  
Washington Post

     (2) Washington Institute for Near East Policy

     (3) Political Research Associates

     (4) The Wall Street Journal

»

Phil Wilayto is a writer and activist living in Richmond, Virginia.  
His latest book is "In Defense of Iran: Notes From a US Peace  
Delegation's Journey Through the Islamic Republic." He can be reached  
at philwilayto at earthlink.net.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090325/3cb086d3/attachment.html