Stepping through the door

OK, OK. I'll admit that I may be guilty of a bit of optimistically naive hyperbole in my reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's private letter to President Bush. In my defense, I can only say that I was thrilled to read something other than "strategic military strikes" or "retribution" concerning the dangerous standoff between Washington and Tehran, and encouraged that at least one of the participants had reached out directly to the other with something besides the usual belligerent rhetoric.

Nevertheless, I would still contend that Ahmadinejad's gesture is tremendously significant and should not be ignored out of hand, if only because of the fact that it breaks a 27-year silence between the two nations. Today's New York Times notes:

While sticking to a script of grievances against the United States, the tone also marked a shift from Mr. Ahmadinejad's past discussions. He did not use the terms "Great Satan" or "World Oppressor." And the letter did seek to identify a common ground for starting discussions.

"It would be a big mistake if the United States dismissed it or if they only consider it as a philosophical, religious, historical letter," Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University, said by telephone. "It would be a good idea if President Bush responds to it. It can open up some space."

Of course, the overly-theocratic contents of the letter that have been made public are not something worthy of broad support. Urging the U.S. to "give up its liberal, democratic, secular system and turn more toward religion" is not a suggestion I'd advocate following - in fact, I would argue that a vast number of the problems created by the Bush Administration are a result of the President's having already implemented that line of thinking in his style of governance.

Still, there were surprising notes of common sense ringing throughout Ahmadinejad's missive which should give our President, and all of us, pause:

"Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?"

"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 Muslims, and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses. All divine religions share and respect one word, and that is monotheism, or belief in a single God and no other in the world."

"Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?"

I am still terribly dismayed by those who view a military conflict with Iran as "inevitable" - or, worse still, are shouting for pre-emptive strikes against Tehran RIGHT NOW. Guess I just don't understand a rabid bloodlust for war when there's even a chance that direct conversation and negotiation could avoid this most terrible course of action. Diplomacy is not just a policy to be followed with our allies. If anything, it is even more important to practice with our enemies, real or perceived.

And it always strikes me that those who view war as the automatic answer to all differences of global opinion are those least likely to sacrifice their own sons and daughters to the slaughter they so eagerly support. It's easy to raise the battle cry, as long as it's someone else's children that will do the fighting and dying that are the inescapable consequence of military action.

So, while I am willing to retract some of my initial enthusiasm over the Iranian President's letter (maybe "Unexpected Santa" did go a bit too far!), I continue to believe that talking trumps killing any day of the week. It doesn't necessarily matter that Ahmadinejad failed to address the nuclear question directly. That's a specific issue that can be raised in a similar American response. Maybe something along the lines of:

Dear Mamoud,

I appreciate your personal note, especially your respectful references to Christianity and the followers of Moses. You took a bold step in contacting me directly, something no one from your nation has done in more than a quarter-century. And I know what it's like when you risk angering your political base.

But we've gotta talk openly about your nuclear ambitions, and what we can do to ease the minds of the global community. Maybe there are ways we can work together, to ensure that your use of nuclear power remains peaceful, and to offer proof to those around the world who still don't take you at your word on this topic. Neither of us would benefit from a fight, so let's see what we can work out. After all, I'm a uniter, not a divider, so if you're willing to try, why hell, son, so am I!

Sorry about all the name-calling, but let's be honest - you've done a bit of that yourself. Glad we can talk now, though. It sure beats the alternative. Lookin' forward to hearing from you soon,

George W. Bush
President of the United States

Ahmadinejad is certainly still an ideological opponent, and there's a long way to go before the mutual suspicions of Washington and Tehran can be expected to dissipate fully. But callously dismissing his overture as "non specific" would be missing the bigger point. When viewed within the complex context of international diplomacy, his letter has opened an important door, albeit just a crack.

Will the Administration be wise enough to step through that door in the spirit of peace - or will it stubbornly insist on destroying the entire house that surrounds it from afar?