From the Supreme Leader to the President Elect: Congratulations

An Open Letter from the Supreme Leader to the President Elect

Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution

to

Barack Obama, President-elect of the United States of America

Dear Senator Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in the presidential election. During the campaign you said that if elected, you would talk with the Iranian leadership without preconditions. I hope you will follow through on this campaign promise. To set the agenda, here is what I believe we should talk about, including some things on which we will have to agree to disagree, and some things on which we can agree.

1. Satan and Evil

The leaders of both of our countries have been guilty of demonizing the other. Let's talk about how to stop it.

Beginning with our revolution in 1978, Iranian leaders have found it useful to whip up domestic political support by branding America as the Great Satan. President Bush, for the same reason, found it useful to brand Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil. But please understand this: although our current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is given to rhetorical excesses neither he nor Ayatollah Khomeini whose Farsi words he was merely repeating verbatim, has ever said anything that can be accurately translated into English as "Israel will be wiped off the map." This is a mis-translation (apparently by the New York Times). If you don't believe me, please ask Hooman Majd, the Iranian-American who has been the simultaneous Farsi-to English translator for several Iranian presidential speeches at the UN, including those of Ahmadinejad. During Majd's interview with Terry Gross on her Fresh Air radio show of September 25, 2008, Majd says that a more accurate English translation of Khomeini's words is "Israel will vanish from the pages of time."

2. Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah

Also please understand this: the UN's 1947 decision to partition Palestine and create the state of Israel is seen by Iranians and most other people in the Middle East as a profound injustice -- a morally indefensible attempt by Europe, Russia and the USA to expiate their guilt over the Holocaust not at their own expense, but at the expense of the Palestinian people. The people of the Middle East, including the Iranian people, believe that Israel was the illegitimate creation of outside powers, and has no right to exist. And because we believe this, we hope and expect that it will eventually vanish from the pages of time.

The question of Israel's legitimacy is one on which the American and Iranian people will have to agree to disagree. However, we can agree that this question should not be resolved by force. Iran has given military support to Hezbollah and Hamas -- enemies of Israel. America has given military support to Israel -- enemies of Hamas and Hezbollah. By arming our respective allies, neither of us is contributing to a solution. This should stop, and we should talk about how to stop it. And neither of us should require the other to accept our position on the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Palestine as a pre-condition of starting these talks.

3. Iraq

In Iraq we share some common objectives: first, the withdrawal of American troops as quickly as possible without reversing the progress that has been made in recent months towards security and political reconciliation. In the longer term, we share the objective of seeing Iraq evolve into a state that is at peace with itself and its neighbours.

However, Iranians and Americans do not agree on the political culture that Iraq should embrace. While you and we agree that nations should be governed by law, you believe that the laws should be decided by the people, whereas Iranians believe that the laws have been given to us by the Almighty and cannot be altered or undone by the will of the people. This is another thing on which Americans and Iranians must agree to disagree.

As for Iraq, however, we can agree that the decision between these two legal and political cultures should be not be imposed by either Iran or America, but should be decided by the Iraqis themselves. If Iraqis decide for an Islamic state, America must accept this. The same applies to Iran in case Iraq decides for democracy. Our talks should lead to an agreement on how to make this happen. And neither of us should require the other to accept our position on the role of democracy in Iraq as a pre-condition for starting these talks.

4. Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power

The acquisition of nuclear weapons is prohibited by the laws of the Almighty as we understand them, and by the treaty law of nations who, like Iran, are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. For these reasons, Iran has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. The objectives of Iran's current nuclear program are civilian, not military, and we are prepared to prove it.

Unfortunately, in the America of Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz, it is a foregone conclusion that the purpose purpose of Iran's nuclear program is military. This is not a something these people are willing to decide on the basis of objective evidence and analysis. It is to be decided on the basis of conviction, using such arguments as "Iran is an inherently aggressive nation" (although we have not invaded a neighbour except in retaliation since 1739); or "Why would Iran want to use nuclear energy for power generation given its ample reserves of oil and gas?" (The answer, of course, is that because nuclear electricity is so much cheaper, it is highly inefficient to make electricity with oil and gas and forego the earnings these fuels could realize in the international market. For exactly this reason, the United Kingdom and Russia have been generating nuclear electricity for years.); or "Russia is willing to supply all of the reactor fuel Iran requires." (as if Russia can be considered a reliable, no-strings-attached supplier of energy to anyone).

There is a simple, objective way to test whether a nuclear program is civilian or military. So long as uranium enrichment does not exceed 3.5%, the program is civilian. Once enrichment rises above 3.5%, the program can only be military because reactor fuel requires only 3.5%, and there is no civilian application for more highly-enriched uranium.

These facts provide the basis for an agreement that will allow us to prove (or you to disprove) objectively that our nuclear program is peaceful. In his speech before the UN General Assembly in September 2005, President Ahmadinejad invited America and other nations with expertise in civilian nuclear power to form a consortium to enrich uranium in Iran to supply fuel to Iran's planned nuclear power-plants. Were Iran's enrichment program carried out within such a consortium, the level of enrichment would be entirely transparent. Iran would also agree to intrusive IAEA inspections throughout the country to provide assurance that no nuclear fuel cycle activities were taking place other than by the consortium.

Cheney, Bolton and Podhoretz will scoff thus at this idea: "So you want us to help you get your enrichment centrifuges running smoothly and then, when you are ready, throw us out, raise the enrichment level from 3.5% to 90%, and build a bomb?" But guess what? We are getting our centrifuges to run smoothly without your help. Those of your experts who have expressed skepticism on this have consistently been proven wrong, and the IAEA has attested to this. This is not about what Iran is able to do without American help. It is about proving that our program is peaceful. We hope that in Barack Obama's America, objective tests will replace speculation, suspicion and prejudice on this issue. Let's talk about how we can prove to you that our intentions are peaceful. And please do not require us to suspend enrichment as a pre-condition for starting these talks.