Ahmadinejad's Letter to President Bush

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

On May 8, 2006 it was reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to American President George Bush at the same time that the U.N. Security Council was drafting a resolution on Iran's nuclear program. This was the first contact between an Iranian and American leader since the U.S. cut ties with Iran following the revolution. The letter brought up hopes that the Iranian nuclear standoff would be resolved diplomatically. Oil prices even tumbled that day when the news broke out. However this hope was short lived. Ahmadinejad's letter offered no solution to the current standoff and The White House immidietly dismissed the letter calling it "not-serious" and "irrelevant". Ahmadinejad's letter brought up many interesting political, religious, and philosophical ideas but did not bring up anything relevant to the current crisis' regaurding Iran. The nuclear issue was not even mentioned in the contents of the 18 page letter. However the letter could be used by some (notably Russia and China) as an excuse to defer U.N. sanctions against Iran. The letter was more of a leture to Bush about his supposed failures of foreign policy. Knowing of Bush's strong religious beliefs, Ahmadinejad brought up the "what would Jesus think" card many times in the letter, in an attempt to imply that Bush's actions around the world have contradicted the teachings of Jesus.  Below are some random exerpts from the letter. The full letter can be found HERE.

Also see: Diplomatic Naivety Full Text of Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush Full Text of Speech: A World Without Zionism Full Text of Ahmaindejad's Letter to American People Ahmadinejad Threatens Europe

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.

This one is interesting because Iran's secret police regluarly arrest their own citizens and place them in secret prisons.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

Yea, and 60 years ago there was no nation of Palestine either. In fact their was never a "country" called Palestine. And no old globe would have a "Palestine" on it either.

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.

No one has any problem with "technological and scientific acheivment" in the middle east. In fact many wish that such achievments would be reached in that region. However no one wants an unstable regime, like the one currently in Iran, to have a dangerous weapon such as a nuclear bomb.

Mr President, Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

Sure they do. And we are not stopping them. In fact we have helped Latin Americans live better lives and live free of fear. The only Latin American people living in fear are the Cubans. Every country in Latin America is a democracy except Cuba. As for Venezuela, which I think he was refering to, we did not support their coup leaders. This is just propoganda from Chavez. Chavez also claims U.S. is trying to assasinate him, invade his country, and take away his oil. All untrue.

the people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

Once again, this has nothing to do with us. We are in fact giving substantial amounts of aid to help the Africans. Things like this show the liberal side of Ahmadinejad. While he might be socially conservative, he is economically liberal. He has deep sympathy for the poor and he mentions poor people many times in his letter. One of the reasons he was so popular among Iranians was because he related to the lower class Iranians.

For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place.

But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH).

More religious BS here.

In some ways this letter showed the softer side of Ahmadinejad. Before reading this I thought he was just some maniac. I still dont have a positive impression of him, but now I have a better understanding of how this man thinks. On the other hand, some think Ahmadinejad wrote this letter simply to waste time and gain sympathy from the rest of the world. No where does this letter address any of the important issues facing Iran. This letter might have made a good magazine column, but it is totally irrevlevant and even inappropriate to send it to the President of the United States under the current circumstances. While no one doubts that the letter contained mostly irrelevant rambling against Bush and the U.S., some people viewed the gesture of sending the letter a little differently. Some people believe Bush should have used this letter as opening to begin direct talks with Tehran over the nuclear and other issues. Others say the letter was just a delay tactic. One point of view notes: IT is unfortunate that Washington was so quick to dismiss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush. With 18 pages, the letter which, according to Iranian officials, contained proposed “new solutions for getting out of international problems” may well have been rambling; from snippets leaked by the Americans, it clearly represents a totally different worldview from theirs — thus ruling out from the start any basis for agreement. It is also clear that the letter did not address the issue of the moment — Iran’s nuclear crisis. Nonetheless, it was something of a diplomatic breakthrough; no Iranian leader has been in direct contact with a US president since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. In rejecting the letter so brusquely, Washington has shown a degree of diplomatic naivety. It may not have been an attempt to initiate dialogue with the US but merely a diatribe against President Bush. Even so, it could have been used as a bridge for further contacts with Tehran. A carefully worded response, on which dialogue could be built, should have been the next step. Washington has missed an opportunity to try and resolve the nuclear issue through an unexpected diplomatic opening — just when all other diplomatic efforts seem to have run into the ground. What is even worse is that in so tersely rejecting the letter and saying there would be no response, Washington sends a clear message that it is not interested in a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis, rather that it is determined to force Tehran into a humiliating retreat on the issue. Another View: The US last night rejected the letter as having no relevance. A US state department spokesman said: "Nothing in the letter addresses the issues on the table between Iran and the world, whether on the nuclear issue, terrorism or human rights."  He added: "Instead, it is a broad historical, philosophical exposition."

Send Comments Return to Home Page

Reader Comments:

Name: Massoud Location: Unspecified Comment: Looks like someone should have sent the exact same letter to Ahmadinejad himself asking him the exact same questions. At least Bush can answer that even with all this the American people are the happiest and most satisfied people on the earth. Can Ahmadinejad say the same thing about his country men? Don’t forget that Iran has the highest rate of drug addiction among the youth in the world, young boys and girls are routinely sold to Arab seiks as sex slaves, prostitution is rampant in Iran, and women are considerd half of human beings. And Jesus and Moses will be happy with that? (we know Mohammad will be happy since these are all his rulings)