Iran’s Ahmadinejad to Obama: Say ’sorry’
The Iranian president told Obama to show us change we can believe in.
By Matthew Clark | Staff writer 01.28.09
“Sure, I’ll ‘unclench my fist’, but first you must kiss my ring.”
That’s essentially the message Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sending to President Obama in what the BBC is calling “one of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s strongest tirades against the US.”
“Those who speak of change must apologize to the Iranian people and try to repair their past crimes,” Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in an address in the western region of Khermenshah.
The comments are in response to Mr. Obama’s offer to extend a hand if Iran “unclenched its fist,” which he made during an interview broadcast Monday on a Saudi-owned TV station.
Yankee, go home!
With respect to US troop deployments abroad, Ahmadinejad also said he expected “deep and fundamental change,” reports Agence France-Presse.
“Meet people, talk to them with respect, and put an end to the expansionist policies,” said Ahmadinejad. “If you talk about change it must put an end to the US military presence in the world, withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders. … If someone wants to talk with us in the language that [President] Bush used… even if he uses new words, our response will be the same that we gave to Bush during the past years.”
Window of opportunity?
These comments come the day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Iran had a “clear opportunity” to engage with the international community, but they may not be exactly what she had in mind.
Well, no one said it would be easy.
In a recent opinion piece, former longtime Monitor correspondent and editor John Hughes wrote: “We should not get too starry-eyed about [Obama’s ‘new approach’].”
President-elect Obama will not soon sip tea in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and come away with his pledges to stop aiding terrorists, abandon its nuclear weapons program, and recognize Israel.
If the political stars align, what we might see is the beginning of considerably lower-level diplomatic engagement, perhaps the establishment of a US diplomatic post in Tehran, and some people-to-people, cultural, and sporting exchanges.
Not that Obama’s in any real rush to talk with Iran.
The Monitor’s US foreign policy correspondent, Howard LaFranchi, wrote that “neither close Obama advisers nor Iran experts are expecting a rush to dialogue with Tehran … for a number of tactical and event-driven reasons:
•The economic crisis will consume much of the new president’s attention and is likely to put off major diplomatic initiatives.
•The sinking price of oil is seen as having clipped Iran’s wings, raised domestic woes for Tehran, and made negotiations somewhat less urgent.
•And, most important, Iran holds presidential elections in June, leaving the United States wary of doing anything beforehand that might be used by Iran’s extremist and anti-Western forces – in particular President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – to electoral advantage.”
It could be that his new message is targeted much more for a domestic audience ahead of the vote in June.
Tough talk is often political gold dust.
<< Israeli warplanes hit Hamas tunnels | MainComments
3. Jason | 01.28.09
How about the Irainian government and people stop funding these terrorist organizations and jihadist that focus on not changing what is different like the big bad US of A but instead they want to destroy those that are different. The Iranian government does this to keep a their political image safe. And he wants us to say sorry. Ha, only if he agrees to walk around in a western womans skirt/dress while singing “God Bless America” through the streets of Tehran.
4. RThomas | 01.28.09
Ahmadinejad may be waiting a long time for his apology… it’s not exactly a conciliatory remark.
5. Steve | 01.28.09
During the early parts of his campaign, Obama made the statement that he would sit down to talks with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela without precondition. I guess Obama is being presented now with the realities that such activities are easier said than done, and much less wise than said.
6. barrett hays | 01.28.09
What should America apologize for? Let the Iranian government speak to their own people about the lackluster performance of the Iranian government.
7. Robin | 01.28.09
By acting like a petulant child, Ahmadinejad is throwing away an opportunity to influence world opinion in his favor. He reminds me a little of Bush Jr. in that regard….
8. Mihail | 01.28.09
President Obama has a lot to learn about the world, and the dictator of Iran will be there to teach him how the game is played.
9. 42itus1 | 01.28.09
There will be no agreement with Iran as long they continue to develop their nuclear capability, period. Israel will not sit by for much longer and watch it happen; that is a big problem for the US. I’m not sure how Obama will address this tinderbox but for now at least there is a dialog.
10. cbear | 01.28.09
well he tried - but really bush needs to apologies we the USA can only go forward- what have we done to iran anyway?
12. Laura | 01.28.09
The lede in this story is exaggerated and misleading. It does not accurately convey Ahmedinejad’s tone or meaning. He spoke of mutual respect. Your lede suggests he spoke with contempt.
13. Joe Smith | 01.28.09
C’mon Hillary. This is good time to start showing mastery in those smart negotiation that you’ve been touting.
14. John | 01.28.09
Well why does Israel the terrorist state can have a nuclear capability and Irand cannot. Well you Americans think that you can run the world as you wish but listen up guys it’s about time to realize that there are other people who think differently than you and your boss Israel. So keep the policing to yourself and try not to interfere in others matters.
15. Scott | 01.28.09
I hate to say Ahmadinejad is right, but the CIA did help overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government to install the Shah. Nobody seems to acknowledge this.
But–I suppose the Islamist government wouldn’t be in power if there was no Shah to revolt against, so maybe he should be thanking us?
16. Jerry Ulibarri | 01.28.09
I’ll hope that Obama stays his course. The Iranian people actually think highly of the United States, though they hated the Bush Administration. With Obama, we have plenty of political capital with the Iranian populace.
Ahmadinejad may very well have cut his own political throat with his cry baby statement, if the Iranians decide he’s too extreme for their future.
He actually gave Obama a free pass on diplomatic relations, since we offered the olive branch, and Ahmadindjad refused it.
17. John | 01.28.09
What Nuclear weapons are you talking about? They are developing Nuclear power, we cannot through unsubstantiated claims and expect to have a dialog. What needs to happen is Iran electing a new president, then we can start to have a dialog.
In terms of apologizing, it is well overdue, we helped overthow a democratically elected government in 1953 because the PM wanted to Nationalize the Oil Industry after being plundered by the Brits for so many years. It’s about time that America realizes our actions have long term consequences and own up to them. Obama should aplogize to the Iranian people, not the Iranian government.
18. Mitch | 01.28.09
Looks like a return to the US/Iran relations during the Carter Administration - we give an inch and they take a mile. Appeasement never works, it just puts off real leadership for the next guy (In that case Reagan). After growing up in Muslim communities, does Obama even know anything about radical Islam’s beliefs and goals? They do not include peace with the West… period.
19. tonypate | 01.28.09
The writer Mr Clark is simply flaming the propoganda war to keep Obama administration keep a distance from Iran and not initiate any talks. This is a very old fear tactics on the part of this writer and sadly some people fall for this type of incitements. It worked well during the previous administration but not this time.
20. Robert | 01.28.09
This should prove a point. With some people the diplomatic way just doesn’t work. New President, new direction and all Ahmadinejad is trying to do is get a leg up on him. When will people learn that with some evil… The only thing they understand is force.
21. obama is a fool | 01.28.09
Change? This is change? Talk about failed policy! Obama is a fool who is getting some bad advice from his handlers. Carter tried this approach remember? Iran made a fool out of him. Iran will do the same with Obama. The left has run a successful campaign of laying ALL of the world’s problems on Bush. Anybody with a brain and the ability to read and understand history knows that these Islamic radicals have hated the US well before Bush was president.
The central problem is: our support for Israel versus Islamic determination to “wipe Israel off the map”. Obama wants to make nice with governments and groups who question among other things, the veracity of the Holocaust is a waste of time. Bush had it right…and history will vindicate him. Strength and courage to use military force is the ONLY language that keeps idiots like Ahmadinijad in check.
22. davestarfield | 01.28.09
We Americans would do well to keep a couple of things in mind with regard to Iran.
One, the sense of pride of a people with an ancient culture that dates back 3,000 years or more is not to be underestimated. They feel that deserves some respect, and it was that note that Obama’s comments have struck recently. Very smart.
Secondly, Iran’s president is not the real power. Obama was not talking to him, he was talking over his head to the Mullah’s and clerics who REALLY run Iran. In essence, Obama was offering a respectful and frank discussion with the adults in Iran, and showing he understood the real power structure there.
Again, very smart.
That’s why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost it. He’s a flaming radical, who wants to see the West humiliated and prostrate before his greatness. He ought to be more careful, or his real bosses will put him on the timeout chair.
I’m encouraged by the opening moves Obama has made. Iran should not be treated like a child, or like a donkey. Direct, and frank and respectful discussions will work.
23. Dennis | 01.28.09
Gee no said it would be easy??? Wow I thought that when Obama got into office that the world would a much friendlier place….I guess not. The Iranian government is not interested in joining any international community. Such a shame. President Obama and Hillary have the job cut out for them. Best of Luck!!
24. Mary Gardener | 01.28.09
Amaninejad is absolutely right. I am a white anglo saxon woman and I have no racial or political interest in this other than to see very clearly that the US has bullied Iran and other nations unmercifully and Obama’s overtones should surely be prefaced with an apology to every country the US has insulted and harmed.
25. Funkdubiouse | 01.28.09
Did anyone expect different. An olive branch is somewhat extended and Obamas face gets spit in. Iran cant be dealt with diplomatically, not at this time in history anyway. All Iran is doing is byeing more time to finish thier nuclear weapon. When that happens, then how will you “talk” to them. They must be stopped.
26. ds | 01.28.09
The President is making a serious mistake by using the language he has. The large swath of people who will appreciate his language are not the problem anyway. Those who are the problem leverage conciliatory and apologetic language for their own strength. The US Military has repeatedly made this mistake in dealing with insurgent movements. This approach is not a “higher ideal” nor is it novel or enlightened. Unfortunately the President and the US will learn this in time.
27. Bruce Rawson | 01.28.09
Check out a book called ALL THE SHAH’S MEN in which Steven Kinzel discusses the CIA led overthrow of Irans first democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.
28. JingoismUnlimited | 01.28.09
“There will be no agreement with Iran as long they continue to develop their nuclear capability, period. Israel will not sit by for much longer and watch it happen”
…what about Israel’s nuclear arsenal? Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium…can you prove that they are enriching to the 90% or better required for weapons grade?
Your love of Israel will lead to the destruction of the world as we know it. If Israel attacks Iran, it will not be like attacking defenseless Palestinians trapped in Gaza. Iran has plenty of anti-tank missiles, and an air defense system. Iran will respond in force, and may destroy the Jewish state…in order to prevent its destruction, Israel will resort to using its fully developed nuclear weapons. Do you think Israel is worth the destruction of humanity, because they think God prefers them above all others? What kind of God would commit such a folly?
Think, people….please think.
29. ahamd | 01.28.09
the regime, that stoning to death, amputation,take off the eyes, and use iranians money to start war in gaza, must apologise.
30. ben | 01.28.09
supporting the palestinian struggle against oppression, land theft, and helping them defend themselves is no different than the US support of Israeli ‘terrorism’. Why is it terrorism when Iran does it? If anything Iran’s intervention is more valid as the palestinian problem is in it’s back yard.
The Israelis are not heroes, and the Palestinians are not villians. The Palestinians were disenfranchised from their land through cooperation of multiple interests (British, US, Jordan, Syria) and then kept from their land through support from the US and superior Israeli organisation.
If the blacks in South Africa had managed to mount an armed insurgency against the injustice there would it have been ‘terrorism’ or a just struggle?
Stop labeling one side ‘bad’ and the other side ‘good’. Completely biased reporting.
31. Wade Izzo | 01.28.09
We view the world as though it is our jobs to fix all things bad and at the same time never hurt anyone’s feelings. Regaurdless of the politics of the situations we truely try to be the good guys. If we wtihdrew to our own boarders our money and our charity would come with us. Where would the trillions of our dollars go that now aid just about every other country in the world? Sure some more than others but we still do aid a lot of people one way or the other.
32. Donald | 01.28.09
I look foward to peace but I hope that Obama tell him before USA kisses his ring he can kiss…. well nevermind. If Iran has nothing to offer in the way of peace, the rest of the world will move on without them.
33. mjtimber | 01.28.09
And Ahmadinejad comes with the clenched fist…fortunately, they have elections there, so he might not make it past August of this year.
34. philosopherkingtomas | 01.28.09
let Iraq develop nuclear POWER; on weapons, India, Pakistan, Korea north and south, and Israel are way more dangerous today !
35. tonypate | 01.28.09
If you do not talk to countries who you have disagreements with then we shouldn’t have a foreign policy agenda. We still talk to Israel and even send billions to them each year even after they killed so many civilians in Gaza, we still talk to the colonial power England and France, we still talk to Saudi Arabia who has violated so many human rights but hey we get oil from them so we hvae to talk.
36. Alex | 01.28.09
I think Iran’s answer was clear, now he should stick to his guns and go after them.
37. aqilmund | 01.28.09
Israel needs to have its wings clipped and the US will have to let them know that there are limits to our patience with their behaviour. Charges of anti-Semitism and Holocaust guilt should no longer drive our policy. That dog won’t hunt no more. The coupling of unwavering support of Israel with billions in US aid to Israel is incongrous when an Israeli’s annual income of $17000 is contrasted with annual income of a Gazan of $300. The US needs to treat the disease not the symptoms if we want to solve the issue or we will keep bleeding US money, lives and watch the rest of the world laugh at our ineptness.
38. brutus inquisitor | 01.28.09
Iran’s nuclear capability gives that country tremendous bragging rights in the Mideast. I doubt that they will give this up.
Mideastern governments’ dealings with the non Muslim West can be better understood after you read the Koran. There are some very interesting passages on dealing with infidels. My only advice is that everyone in State should read the Koran. At least once.
39. korina knudson | 01.28.09
An open dialog is appropriate. I’m sure all sides have equally valid points to make. As in any tense discussion we must listen attentively and with respect, taking responsibility for our part of the challenge and of the solutions. Let everyone follow the golden rule which seems to be a common ground for all of these religions and entirely different cultures. It IS a new day with much to process, so let the dialog begin.
40. Jeremy | 01.28.09
There is only one foreign plolicy agenda that I agree with, altemadum. Tell them they will stop assisting insurgents in Iraq, they will stop thier support of hamas/hezbolah, they will recogonize Israels right to exist and they will absolutely hault ALL nuclear activities. If they wont then you bomb them back into the stoneage.
41. Ahmarealbad | 01.28.09
Obama doesn’t have to do much right now, anyway. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have had just about enough of Iran and its destabilization tactics.
Nuclear war in the Middle East affects everyone in the Middle East, not just Israel. Nuclear fallout will blow over Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Lebanon…
When Iran threatens Israel with nuclear weapons, it threatens Israel’s neighbors equally.
Iran doesn’t care about the consequences to others. It doesn’t care about the Gazans. It pushes them to attack Israel with Iranian-supplied rockets and doesn’t care if there is a reprisal from Israel that damages most of Gaza’s infrastructure.
If the Gazans asked to relocate to Iran, my guess is that Iran would refuse them asylum. To Iran, Gazans are disposable.
42. Simplicio T. Soriao | 01.28.09
The time has come for all civilized nations to recognize the importance of let and let live approach to solving global strife. While this may not be the underlying premise of Iran’s foreign policy, it is the overriding goal of the international community and the United States.
The principle of co-existence echoes that no one nation can impose its will on others; it is also for the same reason that no one individual can tyrannize his or her fellow human being at the expense of weakening the brotherhood of man.
43. RootsofDemocracy | 01.28.09
Ahmadinejad is simply looking at the reality - this is the United States, with the same “Sec. of Defense” as Bush, with a slightly different strategy, yet still not enough to shift their own “unapologetic” ways. This is simply a polarization that goes back decades to regime policy change when the Shah of Iran was ousted, a long ally with the United States.
There is truth to the statement regarding “expansionist policies”, most likely addressing our strategy of dominion in an area with vast petroleum reserves. But our Government is in “denial” about this, claiming it is to take out “maniac terrorists”, while killing hundreds of thousands of innocent victims referred to as “collateral damage”. Both sides have a point, yet there have to be apologies from both sides to really reach diplomacy.
I have known Iranians in the U.S. for quite a while, and one must realize when dealing with Iranians, they originate from an environment and culture much different from ours. These people have learned to negotiate more direct and harshly than we are used to. There have been lots of compromises over the years from Iranian immigrants, in learning to deal with Americans diplomatically.
For more on this and related subjects:
http://www.RootsofDemocracy.com
http://www.HealingNews.com
44. averageman | 01.28.09
In Obama’s Al Arabiya interview he is taking the same message of hope that won him the presidency in US, across the globe. And why not? all that an average person on the street whether in US or anywhere else in the world is primarily interested in is ensuring good, peaceful future for children. To this vast majority a message of hope resonates much more than a message that is divisive and war/fear-mongering. If the outcome of US presidential race is any indication, negative ideology stops working once the masses have someone to give them a clear positive alternative of hope.
In a way, Obama was speaking directly to the masses in Iran rather than to the leader there. In the upcoming election in Iran, the public there has a choice to embrace a positive world ideology of Obama or a negative one of their current leader. I am sure Obama campaign would win this election too.
45. Nan | 01.28.09
This was written in the Christian Science Monitor? I’m surprised at the cocky editorialism in this article. This is not journalism. It’s odd: there are so many news articles citing Ahmadinejad’s demand for an apology from the U.S. but never a description of what he wants an apology for. His grievance is pretty darned valid: the U.S. and Britain engineered a coup against Iran’s first moderate, democratically elected leader in 1953, because he wanted to nationalize oil in Iran, which would have been bad for U.S. and British oil corporations. The U.S. and Britain then propped up the Shah, who was brutal to the people, which then fueled the reactionary rise of the Ayatollahs. Then we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to fight against Iran. Basically, the U.S. has reaped what it has sowed and we ruined Iran’s original democratic aspirations — all for oil interests.
I think we should apologize. Please, President Obama, work your magic again and offer an apology for these past grievances. It will work wonders in world relations and lift the burden of past colonialism at last.
46. Joseph | 01.28.09
When will these children (Iran) grow up, or would they prefer another smack (Ala Iraq or Afghanistan. Cant they see how the rest of the Muslim world has distanced themselves from the likes of Hamas and Iran?
47. Brigham 007 | 01.28.09
Whenever you have a population predominantly composed of 18 to 26-year-olds and younger with only one dominant gender, any anthropologist could forecast the outcome. Constantly beating their chests, they constantly seek attention. It is only because of their natural resource - oil - that any one cares.
Send all their emigrants back, and let them deal with that!
48. Edwin Herdman | 01.28.09
I find myself in agreement with Mr. Clark, and I believe the President will not move towards Iran until at least after elections for these reasons. Operation Ajax fifty-six years ago in no way warrants us giving wiggle room to the Iranian state - not the people killed and their families, not to Mosaddeq, but to the state embodied in the person of Ahmadinejad and the shadowy figures that control the governmental apparatus of Iran. There’s a big difference.
Only the Iranian leadership can turn around the mess caused in part by our interference, but our interference ended up giving these people a route to power - something the Iranian government really can’t regret and a situation which it will not amend.
Besides, they got their apology at the end of the Clinton Administration.
50. DUNOTS | 01.28.09
response 22, davestarfield, is pretty accurate. Most people here, and in my casual experience elsewhere in the US, seem to think that Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran. He’s not.
He is, however, up for re-election and not as popular domestically as people in the US think he is. We’re liable to see very little meaningful dialogue between the states and Iran until the election is sorted out and there’s less of a worldwide economic monster-attack going on.
But it can’t be stated enough; he’s not the ruler of Iran, and he doesn’t necessarily speak for its people. A people who, in my experience, have been as decent and kind as any other on this Earth. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, sounds to my ears like little more than the Iranian equivalent of W Bush, in political spectrum, strategy and rhetoric.
51. Esmail Hadjihabib | 01.28.09
As an American of Iranian decent, I thought your readers would appreciate to hear my views. I am an American educated Engineer with much interest in the relationship between Iran and USA.
My children were born in USA to an American mother and US is their home land. On the other hands I have many liberal leaning relatives living in Iran – the same group of people who are often referenced by the media as the West leaning Iranians.
It is true that most young people in Iran are interested in having a positive relationship with the West. It is also true that most of the older Iranians have not forgotten many of the terrible policies implemented by many past administrations. Most of those wrong policies were against most known Laws that govern International relationship.
It is also true that Iranian Student took over the American Embassy and kept her Diplomats as hostages for 444 days – a crime against known International Laws.
Knowing these facts makes it clear that there needs to be some form of healing process that must begin. Both sides must admit to past mistakes and apologies before any healing can begin.
This article is not exactly in the best interest of peace making. It omits many important issues that must be openly and frankly discussed. I hope to see in Christian Monitor a more balanced coverage of the future political exchanges between Iran and USA.
52. Majid Saatchi | 01.28.09
appeasement
Lebones have one problem HEZBOLLAH
Palestinian have one problem HAMAS
We Iranian have one problem GOVERNMENT OF IRAN
This World will be safe When people of IRAN can change the regime of Iran
Down with appeasement policy
Shame shame on France
53. Kevin | 01.29.09
The US is involved in two wars right now some would say unwisely. Whether those who make those comments are un the US or come from Ahmadinejad doesn’t make the observations any less valid. But we should also consider other outspoken observations of Ahmadinejad, namely that he has denied the Holocaust and has called for Israel’s destruction. One needn’t agree with certain aspects of Israel’s policies to consider those statements of his less than statesmanlike and counterproductive. I do hope that dialogue is opened up at the higher levels of both governments and I think there are others who are the real power brokers in Iran, and that’s not necessarily its President.
It would be useful for citizens of both countries to have dialogue as well to discuss issues. Certainly the taking of 444 hostages in 1979 breaks international law. But so is a democracy (the US)toppling a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. You won’t find this in many high school history books. I would highly recommend reading Steven Kinzer’s book, “All the Shah’s Men” which explains why what happened in 1953 and since then is germane to both countries in 2009. You’ll find an interview with Kinzer at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html
54. Bullitt | 02.05.09
Doesn’t Ahmadinajad have a point though. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mosadech in 1953 as a favor to British Petroleum, so that they could keep their strangle hold on the Iranian oil supplies even after their empire collapsed elsewhere. It is a fact. It happened and it was morally wrong for the U.S to have done that. In many ways, that was the start of the Truman doctrine, that took the U.S military to conflicts like, Vietnam’s war of independence from French colonialism. There is a lot for which the U.S should say sorry, and i am not even talking about Hiroshima.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. brian | 01.28.09
As long as they admit there wrongdoing around the world …