Bush on the Iran Letter

Now that we know the Bush administration quickly dismissed the letter from Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before it was even fully translated into English, it's no suprise that Bush's first public comments about the letter are pathetically simple:

"It looks like it did not answer the main question that the world is asking and that is, 'When will you get rid of your nuclear program?'," Bush said in his first public comment on the letter.

"It looks like..."? Did he actually read the letter or is that just too much to expect?

In fairness to Iran's president - and he does merit some credit for at least trying to communicate with Bush - he actually did address the question of nuclear technology in his letter:

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.

The fact that Ahmadinejad's letter was not a one page document that simply stated, "Dear President Bush, Let's meet on June 24th at 3 pm to talk about how wrong Iran is to pursue nuclear technology" - language Bush could easily understand - and that the Iranian president instead had the audacity (!) to criticize the Bush administration for decisions and mistakes that we on the left have been detailing for years, practically guaranteed an outright rejection of the letter.

Ahmadinejad has his own world view, as does Bush, but he attempted to have Bush think about this question in relation to his policies: 'what would Jesus do?'. Now, if you're a Christian asking that of another Christian, apparently it's a fair question. However, since it's being asked of Bush by a Muslim man (who acknowledges that his religion recognizes Jesus as a prophet), apparently it's an outrage and is written off as being 'philosophical'. Well, perhaps if Bush had not been so public about his admitted mission from God, that criticism might actually have some weight. But, Bush is proud to proclaim his religiosity, so it seems natural that Ahmadinejad would try to use those beliefs to open up a dialogue between the two men on some common ground. It seems that only Bush is allowed to speak of religion in order to make his political points though.

So, what was the Iranian president's mistake in the way he chose to pen this letter? Even before he wrote it, he was already pegged as just another crazy man over there in the Middle East - especially when the western media reported his wiping Israel off the map quote. Yet, just last week, Israel's Vice Premier said the same thing about Iran. Nobody even blinked and Peres wasn't called out as some religious fanatic intent on destroying the region as Ahmadinejad has been.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

Did Bush come out and denounce these comments made by a political official of the country that is the largest recipient of US foreign aid? Of course not. Here's why:

Peres did not say who should act against Iran if it continues with its nuclear program, but implied military action should be led by the United States, pointing to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israeli officials have indicated that Israel would join any international operation against Iran.

Many Americans oppose US military action against Iran at this point because they realize that their country does not have adequate troop strength to launch a successful invasion and they have finally woken up to the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld have completely mismanaged the Iraq war. However, even though they are also somewhat skeptical of the propaganda the Bush administration is now spreading about Iran, few seem to want to take a look at the broader situation in the Middle East and the neocons' reasons for stifling Iranian progress on the nuclear front - most notably, the protection of Israel.

Is Ahmadinejad a radical? Certainly. Can he be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons? We simply don't know at this point. Realistically though, Iran's president appears to be all talk and very little action when it comes to being a military aggressor in the region. Bush, on the other hand, is a man of very few words and massive military action against his enemies - even when they don't pose an immediate threat.

Ahmadinejad was right about more than one thing in his letter to Bush - the two men are much more similar than they are different. The most stark realization remains: Ahmadinejad wants to talk. Bush doesn't - despite all of his lip service to diplomacy as a viable option. The fact that Bush doesn't like the tone of the Iranian's letter should not preclude an outright rejection of the larger message that both leaders have a responsibility to act as their religious icons would. Why is that controversial? Because Bush knows that his religious beliefs are just words and that he is a weak example of how one who truly believes in Christian values is called to act.