From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 21:14:08 EST
Did Iran Reject Obama's Overture?
Wednesday 25 March 2009
by: Phil Wilayto, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
photo
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Getty Images)
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.
-------
This article was previously published by Defenders for Freedom, Justice
and Equality at www.defendersFJE.org.