Iran Proposes ("Final"?) "Solutions" to Bush?

Nobody knows exactly what "new solutions" Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proposed to President Bush in a secret letter being publicized today, but I wouldn't be surprised if it included a "final solution."

Some are naively very excited about the letter from Iran's president before even knowing its contents.  Because they have inflated their hatred of President Bush to gargantuan proportions and choose to ignore the genuine evil that the current Iranian regime represents, they assume that the letter -- whatever it says -- must represent a golden opportunity for President Bush.  They are already shaking their heads over his failure to leap for the bait.

Let us carefully review some salient facts.

Iran has killed some 10,000 of its own citizens for "crimes" such as lounging by a pool at home in a bathing suit or daring to question the policies of the current Iranian regime.

Let's stop and think about that.  Does America execute people for sunbathing at home, or for having the temerity to question the president?  No.  Does any civilized Western democracy do that?  No.  Why would we want to put any faith in any such regime?

Iran also routinely encourages its people to chant "Death to America" -- even its schoolchildren.  You can also find graphics like this painting on a side of a building in Iran ("Down with the U.S.A.")  Note the skulls where stars should be (click picture to enlarge).  Lovely, eh?

In fact, the same chant of "Death to America" was heard from Iran's legislature the day that it voted to resume uranium enrichment (supposedly for "peaceful purposes" -- right.) 

Strange, but I don't recall ever hearing any "Death to Iran" chants in America's schools or at any public gatherings, do you?  Nor have I seen public buildings painted with "Death to Iran" logos.  And yet President Bush is being called a war-monger in connection with the Iranian threat. 

Iran is also fond of discussing the destruction of Israel.  You know -- the final solution.  Iran is very chatty on the subject.

Iran's president also proudly supported this graphic on the right, showing the U.S. shattered and Israel following.

But by all means, let's get excited about the "secret letter."

I guess those who are excited about the letter are hoping that the Iranian president has saved up all of his rationality for this one letter.  He certainly hasn't demonstrated any rationality up to this point, so I'm sure he has a huge rationality reserve just waiting to be used -- someday.

In fact, a whole lot of people seem to be accumulating reserves of unused rationality.  Faced with a real and serious threat to world peace like Iran, they can't figure out what to do other than to return to their favorite punching bag -- America's president.

One shudders to consider how people with this mindset would handle the Iranian threat if they controlled the White House.  But presumably the game plan goes something like this:  1.  Appease Iran.  Pretend that the threat will go away if nobody does anything about it.  2.  Allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons.  Above all, take no military action to stop Iran.  3.  Hope that Iran's first nuclear strike is against Israel or some other nation, rather than an American city.  4.  Try to find someone else to blame for Iran's resulting nuclear strike(s) and threats of additional strikes against American cities.  5.  Try to continue holding onto power at all costs, until everything is too far gone.  Then surrender control of the United States of America to Iran or its allies.  (But that will be a victory of sorts, because at least those Republicans will not be in charge!)  6.  Attempt to flee the country before the first or second wave of public executions in America reaches them and their families.

Since I'm not particularly fond of this scenario, I'll support President Bush in either throwing Iran's letter into the circular file or using it as a springboard for discussions -- as he sees fit.  What I won't do is to pretend that America's president is a madman, and Iran's president is sane.  That would just be nuts.

_______________________

Update 5/8/06:  A few details are beginning to emerge.  The letter from the Iranian president is "17 or 18 pages long (!)" and covers "history, philosophy and religion," but the letter is not a diplomatic opening on the nuclear issue.  I'm sure that -- coming from Iran's president -- the letter is quite a piece of work, but we'll have to await more details.

Update later 5/8/06:  Radio Blogger has more from Victor David Hansen's appearance on Hugh Hewitt's show discussing the 18-page letter.  Take away points:  1. "Statesmen don't write 18 page letters to each other" 2.  "And this plan is two steps forward for him, and one step back. So he presses, presses, presses, says he's going to wipe off Israel off the face of the map, says the United States is going to suffer from terrorism. Then we get mad, the U.N. gets mobilized, and then he takes one step back, and then two forward. And the net result is he's always one step further to the acquision of nuclear weapons."

Update 5/9/06:  Reuters:  "But a copy [of Iran's letter] obtained by Reuters showed a long rambling treatise that focused on American wrongdoings and did not contain ideas for ending the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions."  (Why am I not surprised?)

Comments

[Bob P]

Gina,

First, I'm disappointed that you would characterize my linked post as "ignor[ing] the genuine evil that the current Iranian regime represents." A more thorough examination of my site would show that I am not naive about the radical fundamentalism of Ahmadinejad's regime, and have been highly critical of his inflammatory rhetoric.

But I am not naive about the errors our government has made in the Middle East either, particularly concerning weapons of mass destruction. And I'm equally disappointed by those who are so eager to rush to war with Tehran, when there simply is no evidence that Iran poses a nuclear threat to Israel or the U.S. at this time.

Is war the only answer you have to the global problems we face? Is favoring diplomacy over killing a sign of disloyalty to America?

You are correct that at the time of my essay I had no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of Ahmadinejad's letter. Yet the fact that this radical theocrat broke a 27-year impasse with the U.S. is significant. I simply don't understand the desire to resist talking if there's even a small chance that talking might prevent the deaths of thousands more American men and women in uniform.

I think it's also significant that staunch Conservative Pat Buchanan feels much the same way as I do on this issue. We're not talking about "appeasement" here - we're talking about pursuing all possible avenues to avoid the horror of war. And, sadly, this is not something our current leaders seem inclined to do.

While your 6-step "game plan" is cleverly written, it, too, is a mischaracterization of the views of those who, like me, feel that there are a number of viable solutions to the Iranian issue that don't involve military confrontation. I'm sad you don't see that our current approach may not be using the actual words "Death to Iran," but the meaning we are projecting is exactly the same.

[lawhawk]

A copy of the letter can be found at WSJ.com. It's a diatribe and a lecture - and it doesn't appear to try and even begin a dialogue.