Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wants to Talk to President Bush


8/14/06 C-SPAN Full Un-Edited 60 Minute Interview:

8/14/06 C-SPAN Un-Edited 60 Minute Interview
Audio file:

Fox News Selling Preemptive War Against Iran

Iran is not the Problem  

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran's Ahmadinejad offers Bush TV debate
Wed Aug 30, 2006 02:37


Ahmadinejad offers Bush TV debate

Tuesday 29 August 2006, 18:56 Makka Time, 15:56 GMT

The Iranian president has challenged his US counterpart to a live television debate.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the offer to George Bush on Tuesday. Thursday is the deadline set by the UN Security Council for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, and Iran faces possible sanctions if it fails to comply.

Ahmadinejad said: "I suggest we talk with Mr Bush, the president of the United States, in a live television debate about world issues and ways out of these standoffs.

"We would voice our opinions and they would too. The debate should be uncensored, above all for the American public."

The White House called the suggestion a "diversion" from the Thursday deadline and refused the invitation.

Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said: "Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour, from support for terrorism to pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability."


Earlier this year Ahmadinejad sent Bush a letter, the first contact in decades between leaders of the two countries.

But the Iranian president said that such a debate would not necessarily mean reopening dialogue with the United States, which froze diplomatic relations with Iran after the seizure of its embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Ahmadinejad said: "Debate is different from dialogue, dialogue has other conditions, we have said our position on that before."

But he said that dialogue was also possible with "the ones who show a frown to our nations if the conditions are fulfilled".


The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency is to report to the Security Council, also on Thursday, on Iran's compliance with its demands.

Iran has said repeatedly that it has no intention of abandoning its nuclear work, which it says is for civilian energy purposes only.

Ahmadinejad said he believed that it was "unlikely" the Security Council would act against Iran over its nuclear programme, which the United States sees as a cover for weapons development.

John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN, has said the United States plans to put forward a draft resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the deadline.

Ahmadinejad said: "Sanctions are not an issue ... We will not be happy if they use anything but logic but we are not worried. After all, we are capable of defending our rights."

The Iranian president caused controversy last year when he described Israel as a tumour that should be "wiped off the map" and said he wanted the root of tensions in the Middle East to be "removed".

Bush won't talk to Cindy Sheehan, he won't talk to anybody.....


Mike Wallace's exclusive interview with Iran's outspoken president:

8/13/06...CLIP 1 - 60 MINUTES





Times Online
Iran concocts 'new formula' to dissolve nuclear stand-off
Tue Aug 22, 2006 13:53

Iran concocts 'new formula' to dissolve nuclear stand-off

By Sam Knight and agencies, Times Online, 08/22/06,,251-2324256,00.html

Iran offered what it described as "a new formula" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear programme today and said it was ready for talks.

Details of the offer, which was presented to diplomats in Tehran today, more than a week before a UN deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium, were not immediately available but Iranian officials said that they expected negotiations to be able to resume after months of deadlock.

"Although there is no justification for the other parties’ illegal move to refer Iran’s case to the Security Council... the answer was prepared... to pave the way for fair talks," Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the country's student news agency.

"Iran is prepared to hold serious talks from August 23."

There was no word from Western diplomats, who said before the meeting that they were expecting "an ambiguous" response from Tehran.

Iran's statement was given to the ambassadors of Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany at the offices of the Supreme National Security Council in Tehran. The United States, which has no diplomatic presence in Tehran, was represented by the Swiss ambassador.

The Iranians decided to reply today more than a week before the official UN deadline of August 31, which western diplomats have said remains the formal close of this stage of negotiations.

In the UN Security Council resolution passed on July 31, Iran was offered a range of incentives in return for ceasing the enrichment of uranium, a process that readies the fuel for use in a nuclear reactor but which is also the first stage in the development of atomic weapons.

Iran insists that its fledgling nuclear programme is intended to generate electricity, but America and the "E3" group of Britain, France and Germany have voiced suspicions that Tehran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

The incentives designed to soften the Iranian stance included promises to build up trade, diplomatic and other relations with Tehran, including the first face-to-face talks with America in nearly three decades.

Iran would be allowed to build light-water reactors to produce nuclear power but the nuclear fuel would be imported, probably from Russia. In return Iran would have to cease its uranium enrichment.

In the run-up to today's statement, Iranian officials had mixed intransigence with hints that their response would allow grounds for optimism.

While Iran has repeatedly said it will never give up its right to enrich uranium, it has suggested that it might suspend enrichment to allow for further negotiations.

Yesterday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, promised that Iran would continue its nuclear programme unabated. Hours earlier, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were refused access to an underground bunker thought to be used for uranium enrichment.

But Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, described the coming reply as "an exceptional opportunity" to restart negotiations.

"Iran’s response to the package is a comprehensive reply that can open the way for resumption of talks for a final agreement," he said.

Nonetheless, Mr Saeedi highlighted sources of Iranian dissatisfaction with the UN offer. The package of incentives made no mention to the section of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that gives countries the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, according to Mr Saeedi.

As today's talks took place in Tehran, Iranian officials arrived in Moscow to discuss the launch of the country's first nuclear power station, which has been built and supplied with fuel by Russia. The £423 million plant, in the Iranian city of Bushehr, is expected to start producing electricity at the end of the year.

U.S. rejects proposed debate between Bush, Admadinejad

August 30, 2006

The United States on Tuesday rejected a proposed debate between President George W. Bush and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the U.S., has about Iran's behavior, from support for terrorism to pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Perino said the United States was willing to talk to Iran "in the context of positive response to the P5+1 package," referring to the five UN Security Council permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - and Germany.

At a news conference in Tehran on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad proposed the live television debate with Bush on world issues.

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.



Ahmadinejad's Biography
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born in Garmsar, southeast of Tehran in 1956. He is the fourth son of an ironworker who had seven children. Mahmoud and his family migrated to Tehran when he was one-year-old. He got his diploma and was admitted to the University of Science and Technology in the field of civil engineering after he ranked 130th in the nationwide university entrance exams in 1975. He was accepted as an MS student at the same university in 1986 and got his doctorate in 1987 in the field of engineering and traffic transportation planning.

Following the 1979 Islamic revolution he became a member the ultra-conservative faction of the Office for Strengthening Unity [OSU] Between Universities and Theological Seminaries. The OSU was established by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, one of Khomeini’s key collaborators, to organise Islamist students against the rapidly growing Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK). When the idea of storming the American embassy in Tehran was raised by the OSU, Ahmadinejad suggested storming the Soviet embassy at the same time.

With the start of the Iraq war in 1980, Ahmadinejad rushed to the western fronts to fight against the enemy and voluntarily joined special forces of the Islamic Revolution's Guards Corps (IRGC) in 1986. He served in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps intelligence and security apparatus.

Ahmadinejad was a senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards, stationed at Ramazan Garrison near Kermanshah in western Iran. This was the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards’ "Extra-territorial Operations" -- mounting attacks beyond Iran’s borders. His work in the Revolutionary Guards was related to suppression of dissidents in Iran and abroad. He personally participated in covert operations around the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.

With the formation of the elite Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the IRGC, Ahmadinejad became one of its senior commanders. He directed assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou, who was shot dead by senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards in a Vienna flat in July 1989. Ahmadinejad was a key planner of the attack. He was reported to have been involved in planning an attempt on the life of Salman Rushdie.

He served as governor of Maku and Khoy cities in the northwestern West Azarbaijan province for four years in the 1980s and as an advisor to the governor general of the western province of Kurdestan for two years. While serving as the cultural advisor to then Ministry of Culture and Higher Education in 1993, he was appointed as governor general of the newly established northwestern province of Ardebil. He was elected as the exemplary governor general for three consecutive years. But in 1997 the newly-installed Khatami administration removed Ahmadinejad from his post as Ardebil governor general.

Ahmadinejad returned to Elm-o Sanaat University to teach in 1997 and became a member of the scientific board of the Civil Engineering College of University of Science and Technology. He carried out several scientific, cultural, political and social activities. He also worked with Ansar-i Hizbullah [Followers of the Party of God], the violent Islamic vigilante group.

In April 2003 Ahmadinejad was appointed mayor of Tehran by the capital's municipal council, which is dominated by the hard-line Islamic Iran Developers Coalition (Etelaf-i Abadgaran-i Iran-i Islami). In some of Ahmadinejad's public statements, he has appeared to identify himself as a Developer. He lives a very Spartan lifestyle and that's how he projected himself.

As Mayor, he reversed many of the policies of previous moderate and reformist mayors, placing serious religious emphasis on the activites of the cultural centers by turning them into prayer halls during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. He closed fast-food restaurants and required male city employees to have beards and wear long sleeves. He instituted the separation of elevators of men and women in the municiple offices. He also suggested the burial of the bodies of martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war in major city squares of Tehran.

On 26 April 2005 Ahmadinejad said that, in accord with the decision of the city council, the municipality would install a plaque in memory of the victims of Iraqi chemical warfare. "Major crimes have been perpetrated against Iranian nation, the youth and the war veterans affected by chemical warfare syndrome. We should support the rights of the victims by installing the plaque of remembrance," Ahmadinejad said. "The big powers possess technology to produce chemical weapons and they used the deadly weapons against Iranian soldiers during Iraqi-imposed war (1980-1988)."

Ahmadinejad is a member of the central council of the hard-line Islamic Revolution Devotees' Society (Jamiyat-i Isargaran-i Inqilab-i Islami). The Devotees publicly endorsed another candidate -- Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf -- in the 17 June 2005 first round of the presidential election. Both the Developers and the Devotees represent the younger generation of Iranians with a background in the Revolutionary Guards and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Ahmadinejad represents the rise of this new generation.


More Lies for More War
by Gordon Prather

No one – including the Iranians at their (nonexistent) equivalent of our Los Alamos Laboratory – can make a nuclear weapon until they have managed to acquire multi-kilogram quantities of almost pure uranium-235, uranium-233 or plutonium-239.

For that reason, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons required all signatories not already having nuclear weapons to conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a view to preventing diversion of "source or special fissionable material" to the production of nuclear weapons.

"Source" material is natural uranium in any form. "Special fissionable" material includes Plutonium-239 and "enriched" uranium in any form.

Pursuant to a Safeguards Agreement, IAEA inspectors perform periodic on-site inspections and continuous on-site monitoring to verify that "declared" source and/or special fissionable materials are not diverted to a "military purpose."

After the Gulf War, the IAEA Action Team – reporting directly to the U.N. Security Council – discovered that Iraq had had a multi-billion dollar "undeclared" (and unsuccessful) program to enrich uranium for military purposes.

(This Iraqi nuke program of the late 1980s had gone completely undetected by U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. However, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies did detect the nonexistent Iraqi nuke program of the late 1990s.)

Hence cometh the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement [.pdf document], which provided IAEA inspectors much more authority, resulting in much greater transparency to nuclear programs and nuclear-related activities.

Iran signed an Additional Protocol in December 2003, and voluntarily agreed to abide by it, pending ratification by the Iranian Parliament.

Iran's original Safeguards Agreement merely required the disclosure of information on new Iranian facilities that would be processing safeguarded nuclear materials a few months before the materials were actually introduced. The Additional Protocol requires disclosure of that design information as soon as Iranian authorities decide to construct, authorize construction or modify such a facility.

Iran's Additional Protocol also provided for "voluntary reporting on imports and exports of nuclear material and exports of specified equipment and non-nuclear material."

As a result of their voluntary compliance with the reporting requirements of the Additional Protocol, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei was then able to report to the IAEA Board of Governors a year later [.pdf document] that Iran had "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material had been processed and stored."

It should be noted that most of these "failures" were formally disputed by the Iranians as being subject to interpretation.

However resolved, ElBaradei was also able to report that within that year Iran had taken "corrective actions" with respect to most of those "failures."

Finally, a few weeks ago ElBaradei reported that "Since October 2003, good progress has been made in Iran's correction of the breaches" that had been discovered in its basic Safeguards Agreement "and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations" made under the Additional Protocol.

In fact, ElBaradei reported that the remaining issues under the Iranian Safeguards Agreement and its not-yet-ratified Additional Protocol "will be followed up as a routine safeguards implementation matter."

So, there you have it. As of a few weeks ago, not only had Iran corrected the "breaches" that occurred before it signed the Additional Protocol in 2003, but those "issues" that had arisen since as a consequence of their voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol were being routinely "followed-up."

After more than two years of intrusive go-anywhere see-anything ask-anybody inspections under the Additional Protocol, the IAEA has yet to find any indications that there are now in Iran any "undeclared" materials or activities that should have been "declared," nor any indications that any declared materials have been diverted for a military purpose.


The Additional Protocol concept was a success in its first serious application. The IAEA was now not only able to verify the non-diversion of "declared" nuclear material, but also to provide some assurances of the absence of "undeclared" nuclear materials and activities.

So, why did the IAEA Board then plead incompetence [.pdf document], "finding" that ElBaradei's positive reports on Iran's Safeguarded programs had, nevertheless, resulted in an "absence of confidence" on the Board's part "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes" and ought to be referred to more competent authority "as a threat to international peace and security"?

Well, one thing seems certain; the Iranian Parliament will never ratify those incompetents' Additional Protocol.

October 3, 2005

Physicist James Gordon Prather [send him mail] has served as a policy-implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. – ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Copyright © 2005 Gordon Prather


US Hawks Should Not Dictate Policy on Iran

Chris Toensing
(February 21, 2002, Knight-Ridder Newswire)

Iranians and observers across the world were bewildered to hear President Bush declare that Iran is a member of the "axis of evil."

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, elected in 1997 and re-elected in a landslide last year, was the first leader in the Islamic world to publicly condemn the Sept. 11 mass murder. And US officials have tacitly acknowledged that Iranian diplomacy secured the participation of Tajik Afghan militias in both Operation Enduring Freedom and the US-backed interim Afghan government formed in Bonn, Germany.

But flacks in the Bush administration accuse Iran of sheltering Taliban and al-Qaida escapees from the US Special Forces' manhunt in Afghanistan. They say Iran's inclusion in the "axis of evil" serves the new priority of fighting terrorism. This ignores contemporary history.

Osama bin Laden and his extremist Sunni Muslim followers regard Iranians as virtual infidels because they are Shiite Muslims. From 1994 until 2001, bin Laden's guerrillas, alongside the Taliban, fought the Iranian-backed militias in the Northern Alliance and pillaged the Shiite regions of Afghanistan. When the Taliban captured Mazar-i Sharif in 1998, they brutally killed several Iranian diplomats, leading some in Tehran, Iran's capital, to demand an invasion of Afghanistan. So the idea that Iran and al-Qaeda are getting together is implausible.

But demonizing Iran serves a purpose for the Bush administration: it helps justify a laundry list of Pentagon procurements.

Near the top of that list is more money for National Missile Defense (NMD), the new name for President Reagan's disastrous Star Wars program. Though missile defense prototypes continue to fail tests on a regular basis, the program's partisans have retained prodigious taxpayer funding by pointing to "rogue states" whose real or imaginary missiles might someday target American soil.

Many in the administration expect Iraq, one of those rogue states, to be overthrown by US military action soon. If so, hawks would need a new foe to keep National Missile Defense in the money.

Iran fits the bill. The memory of the 1979-1980 hostage crisis makes enmity toward Iran an easy sell at home. And isolating Iran internationally pleases important US allies. Turkey and Pakistan continue to compete with Iran to build the pipelines to Central Asian and Caspian Sea oil and natural gas fields. Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States harp on the Persian peril at every opportunity because of Iran's support for the Palestinians and Hezbolla.

The administration's exploitation of Iran's anti-American image to fatten up the Pentagon is doing nothing to reduce actual anti-Americanism in the Middle East. And antagonizing Iran will do nothing to help disarm the region.

Iran is a country somewhere in the middle of an arduous transition from theocracy to democracy. People with moderate views on relations with the West can be found in both reformist and conservative currents in this complex internal struggle.

But Bush's pugnacious rhetoric reinforces rigid and nationalistic ways of thinking. Predictably, reformist leader Khatami -- whose foreign policy watchword has been a "dialogue of civilizations" -- is now calling upon Iranians to join anti-American demonstrations.

Bush is recreating conflict where there was a quiet detente. His rhetoric is backfiring already. It may please the Pentagon and the military contractors, but it is not making us any safer.

Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, publication of the Middle East Research and Information Project (

(c) Chris Toensing


Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

by Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday:

Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."

Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.

The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.

Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei's pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no first strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, 'Khamenei threatens reprisals against US." In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news.

Although Iran's protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak. I don't think that work is very advanced. The Iranians maintain that it is for peaceful energy generation.

Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants.

posted by Juan @ 8/27/2006 06:36:00 AM

Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran President to American President:


Mr. George Bush,
President of the United States of America

 For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War on Terror” his slogan,And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.
 Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

 Mr. President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness?
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
 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. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.   
Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
 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. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
 I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

 Mr. President,

 I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
-Many thousands were killed in the process.
-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, townsand villages were destroyed.    
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.
Another big question asked by the people is “why is this regime being supported?”  
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Moslem or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
 The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also asking “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”  

Mr. President,

 As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies. 
It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.  
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region 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 utilized 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.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

 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?
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?   
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.          

 Mr. President,

 September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.     
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
 All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors 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 traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate 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 citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification --for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.     
Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

 Mr. President,

 In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”
 As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
 What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:
Those in power have a 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 mange 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 administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns,
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?

 Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?      
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?
How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?
Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? 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). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

 Mr. President,

 According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “the Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”

“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins” “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors” “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful” “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness” “He is witness to the actions of His servants” “He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast” “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants” and “A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

 We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

 We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious”. 

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

 All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man -- based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

 Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets? 

Mr. President,

 History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. 
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

 Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the    
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

 Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
 Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
 President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Full text letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran President to American President

demonizing iran: Google search

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..."

Without Justice, there is JUST_US! 

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page


Hit Counter

 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

Last update 11/26/2010