Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee didn’t attend the latest U.N. Security Council meeting on Iraq. But the moment the 3-hour session was over the Iranian delegation was circulating a strongly worded letter from Khazaee that had a very clear message for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama: Stop talking like Bush.
He was responding to less than two dozen words on Iran in U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s speech to the council during a routine review of U.N. activities in Iraq. Rice said that U.S. policy “will seek an end to Iran’s ambition to acquire an illicit nuclear capacity and its support for terrorism.”
Those words clearly infuriated the Iranians, who have been toning down their anti-U.S. rhetoric since Obama took over from George W. Bush five weeks ago.
“It is unfortunate that, yet again, we are hearing the same tired, unwarranted and groundless allegations that used to be unjustifiably and futilely repeated by the previous administration,” Khazaee said in a letter to the council’s current president, Japanese Ambassador Yukio Takasu.
“Instead of raising allegations against others, the United States had better take concrete and meaningful steps in correcting its past wrong policies and practices vis-a-vis other nations, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Khazaee’s remarks were among the most critical of the new U.S. administration by a senior Iranian official to date.
Is the Obama administration simply repeating the “same tired” language of the Bush administration? The accusations aren’t new, U.N. diplomats say, but the promises of a new approach could herald a radical shift in U.S. policy on Iran.
Obama, Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have said repeatedly that Washington would use all tools, including direct talks, to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.
Iran has reacted cautiously, saying it’s open to fair talks while demanding fundamental changes in U.S. policy. Western envoys in New York say that not everyone in the Islamic Republic is happy about the outstretched hand of Obama and his promises of change.
Tehran had often criticized the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, which labeled Iran a member of an “axis of evil” with North Korea and pre-war Iraq. It’s harder to criticize Obama at the moment, diplomats say. That could be one of the reasons Khazaee seized the opportunity to attack Rice’s speech to the council.
“The hardliners in Tehran find it easier to have a U.S. administration that turns its back on them,” said a European diplomat. “It’s easier to deal with a ‘Great Satan’. It gives them someone to blame their troubles on.”
It’s nearly three decades since Washington severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980 after militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took a group of U.S. diplomats and officials hostage.
Present-day Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be “wiped off the map”, has repeatedly ruled out a suspension of the country’s uranium enrichment program, prompting the Security Council to impose three rounds of sanctions.
U.N. diplomats say that Obama administration officials have signaled that they do not believe the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped with U.S. or Israeli air strikes. Instead, Obama wants to use a combination of pressure – possibly by imposing further U.N. sanctions – and inducements to persuade the Iranians to halt their enrichment program. The details of the new approach are being worked out in a thorough review of the U.S. policy on Iran, U.S. officials say.
“Will a kindler, gentler U.S. approach work?” asked the European diplomat. “We’ll have to wait and see. Iran’s one of the countries that invented chess and it’s a very good player.”


Trackback
29 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
[...] diplomacy with Iran, something the Israelis kind of support, he has made it abundantly clear that a nuclear Iran can’t, and won’t, [...]
- Posted by Joe the Plumber at CPAC:Does Obama Mean Death to Israel? | Christopher HowellDear Louis Charbonneau
>>>>>The Reuters report was based on our own translation from the original Farsi by our Tehran bureau. We don’t rely on “tertiary sources” for our reporting.<<<<<
Perhaps it’d save your reputation if you fired your entire Tehran bureau who seem to be utterly incompetant in their translation skills!!! There are professional translators out there you know!
- Posted by AzitaJonathan Alexander,
Thanks for your clear understanding and analysis of both the Farsi language, as well as deciphering between the words “Regime” and the “Nation”… The differences of which worlds apart…
Isn’t the great bias of the mainstream Media (Reuteres not an exception) only too obvious…at least to some folks? Unfortunately their slanted reportage that is totally devoid of integrity, does effectively taint the views of many; since the majority take the news at face value especially those provided by the Media moguls…which is all that the media (the mouth piece for the politicians) wants to begin with! So, mission accomplished!
- Posted by Azita“Quit talking like Bush”. Hear hear - the Obama administration really isn’t impressing the world with any CHANGE yet, are they?
- Posted by Marie[...] Iran is unhappy with Obama. [...]
- Posted by Where is the Outrage? « Tarry for the NonceDear M. Charbonneau:
Apparently your Tehran Bureau is filled with illiterate, arrogant and incompetent employees, who are not aware of their ignorance.. for example, I have listened to Ahmadinejad’s statement and I can say with 100 percent certainty that the following words or equivalent does not exist in his staetment:
1-The word “Israel”
2- The word “Map”
3-The phrase “wiped off”
What does exist are
–”the regime occupying Holy Land”,
–”epoch”,
—”disappear”
By the way, are you being paid more for insisting on your stupidity ?
Crazysane
- Posted by Gregory WiseAs far as I know the USSR is wiped-off the map and people of the region are happier than the cold-war era. Being wiped-off is not always a bad thing. Think twice before you accuse others as hardliners.
- Posted by SharifThe Reuters report was based on our own translation from the original Farsi by our Tehran bureau. We don’t rely on “tertiary sources” for our reporting.
- Posted by Louis CharbonneauJust for your record:
You do realize that you quoted a Reuters article, right? That is not the same as quoting the original source (which is itself a crude translation from Farsi). In fact, since I can speak Farsi and know exactly what he said, so you would be best to find a literal translation of the text, which in a word-for-word translation is:
“The Zionist regime must vanish from the page of time.”
Considering that Farsi (like French) is a poetic language, and it specifically used the word “regime” (i.e. government and not the nation) it is in no way a threat. It is a declaration of what Iran believes is inevitable (for whatever crazy reason). Nonetheless, it is not declaration of war.
You would be wise to educate yourself with more than tertiary sources and biased journalists.
- Posted by Jonathan Alexander