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. That there was contact at such a low point in the two countries’ relations is both remarkable and encouraging.
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. It is very clear that the joint UN Security Council resolution proposed by the British and French, demanding an end to Iranian uranium enrichment, has no chance of being voted through: Russia and China are firmly opposed, convinced that the wording could lead to sanctions and even military action and so there is deadlock within the Security Council on the issue.
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.
Such a response will achieve nothing and the US should know that. Any threat to the country or the regime is bound to result in greater support for Ahmadinejad. Bush would also do well to remember what happened the last time the US and Iran came to blows — the 1979 US Embassy siege. Iranians certainly do. As far as they are concerned, they dealt the US a humiliating blow. Ahmadinejad remembers it even more so if stories that he was one of the student leaders in the embassy take-over are true.
There are only two possible outcomes to this crisis. Either it will be resolved through dialogue or it will end in tragedy. Washington’s hope that Iran will back down under threat is a nonstarter — and dangerous at that because by seemingly dismissing dialogue and talking the language of ultimatums, which Iran will reject, Washington may well maneuver itself into a corner where, to save face and prevent Iran from gaining a great political victory, it will have to take military action. It happened in Iraq and could happen again. The world cannot bear another such tragedy.
