All Comments (139)

--------Tim: [...]Bush's tough talk led to Iran's turning to the obnoxious Amhadinejad and away from the reasonable Khatami. Under Clinton Iran was close to becoming our friend. Now we are so far apart.
--------

No, the guardian council, that group of fascists mullahs, prevented more than 2,000 reformist candidates from running in 2004. In short, it was overtly rigged in Amhadinejad's and the hardliner's favor. If the voting had been free and fair the reformers would have won and Iran would likely be our friend considering how we dispatched their mortal enemy Saddam. Iran is a terrorist nation determined by dictators to remain a terrorist nation in spite of its people's wishs and dreams. Reminds me so much of the Soviet Union and how those people we imprisoned by its ideologically driven leaders.

--------
Tim: The goal of foreign policy is to improve our standing in the world. Bush's brand of Texas Justice foreign policy may be great for much of this country but our standing in the world ONLY goes up when the rest of the world appreciates it.
--------

While I agree Bush's foreign policy has been abyssmal and made us fewer friends, I have to correct you view of what foreign policy is meant to do. Its not meant to "improve our standing in the world". Foreign policy is meant to make clear to other countries where we stand, what the lines are we do not want to see crossed, and who we consider friend, neutral, and foe. All countries do this. It is done in the best interests of the nation, not in the interest of making friends. But I must say Bush has not really cared much about making a coherent policy, prefering to wing it. That is a very poor way to conduct policy since your friends and foes alike have no idea where your nation stands. It makes you much like North Korea, a country that other nations ignore, fear and try to keep away from. The new democratic Congress seems ready to call Bush on his daily idiotic mistakes, so maybe that daily cold slap in the face by congress will at least keep things going for the next two years until we can say goodbye to Bush and, hopefully, we voters will have learned our lesson.

Mary C
Yes you are correct, our aircraft carriers are in the Persian Gulf. And again you are correct in pointing out that the Ayatollah has a right to speak to us in behalf of defending his sovereign nation, a sovereign nation that is financially supporting terrorism. I guess it is O.K to have representitves of hamas and hezbollah in our country in the guise of cultural exchange, and I guess hundreds of suicide bombers in our country probably shouldn't bother us, I mean if they can cross the border illegally and get us that has got to be better then sending an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, obviously a couple of suicide bombers couldn't amount to the damage an aircraft carrier can inflict( ooops see 9/11). Please educate yourself on Iran( they declared war on us in 1979)and Islam (they declared war on us 1400 years ago).

So many Americans want to wave the flag and tell themselves how great we are. Our current President likes to gear his statements to foster patriotism and faith in his decisions.

I think it is VERY IMPORTANT to realize that it is ONLY important what other countries think about our foreign policy! The goal of foreign policy is to improve our standing in the world. Bush's brand of Texas Justice foreign policy may be great for much of this country but our standing in the world ONLY goes up when the rest of the world appreciates it.

Can anyone think of one thing Bush has done which truly improves our standing in the world, in the eyes of the rest of the world?

Imagining that we are great because a POLITICIAN tells us so is the most dangerous thing we can do. It's time we started earning the respect of the world again, instead of shoving our military might down their throats.

Our President has tried to take credit for elections for Palestinians and for protests in Lebanon against Syrian control (despite the fact that assasinations led to both).

It has been my observation that Amhadinejad's rise to power in Iran has been due to Bush. Mr. Khatami was a moderate who spoke of progressive ideas and openness for Iran's government (which is controlled by a religious committee). Bush's tough talk led to Iran's turning to the obnoxious Amhadinejad and away from the reasonable Khatami. Under Clinton Iran was close to becoming our friend. Now we are so far apart.

I applaud Mr. Khatami's attempt at reconciliation. I wish someone in this administration would reach out too! I fear our government is too conservative in comparison to Iran. And that is a terrible thought.

Iran's former president has bad things to say about America? I am shocked, shocked I say.

Fred , Bos

Jerry F
This, significantly foreign influenced administration , as well as the hawks , including the Neo-cons and doves in DC are far more intelligent than someone who decides to compromise his common sense and intelligence , if any , and who does not appreciate this valuable space the Washington Post has provided , for its readers to intellectually and free of any prejudices , to debate the core of the subject on hands , are fully aware of the fact that, Iran with an unmatched history and culture based on just and justice for all , is not just an ordinary nation but the strongest one in the world . Guns and bullets does not make a nation strong but the unique qualities that the Iranian culture is based and formed of and its people whose integrity and liberty means all or nothing , than the one who has very seldom showed any respect for human lives by numerous interferences and invasions of other countries , all for the advancement of its own interests ,does offer a legitimate candidacy to be the stronger one .
It is quite evident you have a lot learning to do about Iran and Iranians.

While much of what M. Khatami writes is correct, there is the little problem of his government acting to provoke violence within Iraq by providing both Sunni and Shi'a extremists with the means to massacre each other. From a geopolitical standpoint, Iran may belief this serves their interests in weakening both the U.S. and any future Iraqi state. Perhaps it does serve Iranian interests. But it is impossible to view Iran as a serious partner for peace while they behave in this way.

Want to bring stability to the region? Stop shipping IEDs and other arms into Iraq. How's that for offering an olive branch?

Let's see Elaine: Iranian soldiers are in Lebanon and the Iranians attacked Buenos Aires twice in the 1990s. Recently they supplied their friends in Somalia the UIC, who ran like women before the Eithiopian Army burning their uniforms like Germans in May of 1945. They are also military and financial backers of the Sudanese regime responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animists and Christians in southern Sudan, to say nothing of their mass killings of fellow muslims in Darfur. I hope your fantasies provide you comfort.

For all the negatives that can be said about Iran, one thing is certain. Iran is not guilty of invading any of its neighbors or launching preemptive attacks on countries far from its borders. I wish that I could say the same for the United States, regarded presently by most countries as a greater threat to world peace than Iran or any of our other "enemies."

Mr. Khatami is quite puzzling in his interpretation of the US's involvement in Iraq. First of all, can you, Mr. Khatami, pinpoint the exact point in time that the US's attack on Saddam's Iraq switched from being a just removal of "the despotic and tyrannical regime of Saddam" which "has brought contentment to the people of Iraq and in the region at large", to the point that it immediately became an unjust occupation? That logic reminds me of the neighborhood citizens in our country that call 911 to have the police remove the thugs, drug dealers and hooligans from their midst, and as soon s the aforementioned miscreants are safely in the back of the patrol car, begin hurling rocks at the officers that did their duty and crying about police brutality. Give me a break with this absurd hypocrisy.
When the invasion first took place, I, as not only an American, but as someone interested in all peoples human rights, couldn't have cared less if Saddam was housing weapons of mass destruction. I was thrilled to see such a "despotic and tyrannical" dictator meet his end and free the people of Iraq of the atrocities that have been well chronicled under his regime. However, as events have unfolded, it appears that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with a "democratic" governance of themselves. Saddam was just the latest example of a people and religion that simply cannot be helped from tribal and sectarian genocides. The Shiites that now hold the power taken from Saddam and the Sunnis have proven to be just the other side of the belligerent, violent, genocidal coin that has been flipped in the region for centuries. I am now all for an immediate pullout from Iraq. Let's see how well these people that we have spent far too many valuable young American lives trying to help fare for themselves. A people that follow mindlessly their religious leaders never-ending calls to violence against the "other" sect, tribe, etc. have proven themselves beyond help in the way Americans see it. A peoples that flock to the streets with venom and hate, with calls for death, death, and more death to the perpetrators of the horrible crime of drawing cartoons!!!! All apologies to the myriad of politically correct fools that seem to permeate this post list, but there IS a RIGHT way to behave and a WRONG way to behave if you want to be considered part of the human race.

You are correct Zoro, you, Victoria, and Mary C are complete idiots.

-----------
Victoria: Rushdie is fat and happy in london- the fatwa had no bearing because every muslim knows no fatwa can be issued- it can only be issued by a cohesive muslim governing body- which doesnt exist right now.
-----------

In 1998, the Iranian government declared it would not support the fatwa but could not rescind the edict as, under Islamic law, that could be done only by the person who issued it. Khomeini died in June 1989. Today there sits a tombstone in Tehran’s Behesht Zahra cemetery with the inscription:

“Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh, born Conakry, Guinea. Martyred in London, August 3, 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie.”

As recently as 2003 while Khatami was president, it was reported by the official Islamic Republic News Agency that Iran's revolutionary guard said in a statement that the fatwa issued by the Khomeini was "irrevocable".

But you say there is no fatwa. Just cover your ears Victoria and say 3,000 times "La La La".

Iran has a terrorist government which Khatami presided over. The brutal and fatal crackdown on student protests in 1999, protests that backed Khatami who said he was a reformer, indicates the type of government in Iran and Khatami's cowardice or compliance with the real power in Iran, the guardian council. Either way he is the last person on earth who should be pointing out American's failings. Maybe we should ask the mafia to send a representative to the Post to talk about what America should do in Iraq, or maybe Kim Jong-Il. What a farce. Khatami has no standings to be in this "On Faith" board and no standing to talk about war and peace. He's at best a coward and at worst a fascist. And you Victoria call a man who has been in hiding in fear of his life for over 25 years "fat and happy". What a nice person you must be.

Reading these comments, except for Mary Cunningham's and Victoria's, is any wonder we're in this mess?

There is a reason people think we're ignorant - it's because most of us are ignorant.

I noticed that many of those who posted a response believe that Iran is fueling tensions in Iraq. That may or may not be the case, but let's not make the same mistake that we made back in 2003. We were told about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD, whic turned out to be untrue. Now we are being told about the Iranian threat and its meddling in the Iraqi affairs in the same way. If we are going to hate somebody or hold him/her accountable for something, let's do it for the right reasons. Let's ask the US and Israeli governments to provide convincing evidence.

It is also important to differentiate between groups involved in violence in Iraq, their reason fro their involvement and their affiliations. They can be divided into three groups: Sunnis, Shiaas and insurgents. Much of the violence such as car bombings, suicide bombings and killing American troops is done by insurgents. They are said to be related to former members of the Baath party and/or linked to Al-Qaida. They are not supported by Tehran. Insurgents' main objective is for the US forces to leave. Also it was the insurgency that instigated the sectarian fight between Shiaa's and Sunnis by bombing a Shia mosque. They coud have started with a Sunni mosque, but they are themselves Sunnis, and for their objectives it really did not matter whose mosque they bomb.

Did Serbs have the right to tell Iranian Revolutinary Guardsmen to go home? What were iranian soldiers doing in Bosnia? In any case, any Iranians caught in Bosnia by Serb forces now wear permanent Serbian smiles across their throats. Why did Iran decide to bomb downtown Buenos Aires twice in 1993 and 1994? Was Argentina a player in the MidEast? Furthermore why are the Iranians so concerned about Palestine? They are not Arabs nor even sunnis. Why is this their concern? Sooner or later the Iranians will get the holy war they demand and then they will weep to death from woe. Mary C., people like you will be crushed into the dust and no one will complain.

But Sven, the US IS in Mr Khatami's region not the other way around. Iran has not sent two aircraft carriers to the Gulf of Mexico, from where it is threatening certain chemical factories in Biloxi. Khatami has the right to speak to the US because the US is RIGHT THERE, on his doorstep. He has the right to ask you to go home because you are close to his home. You have no right to tell him what to do in his country because it is his country not yours & he is not not going anywhere while you will be gone in a year or so.

Of course, you don't have to go.

Re: the Crusade of 1095

Norman knights were pre-eminent amongst those who went to 'save'the Holy Land--save the best booty for themselves that is!

But the last time I looked these self-same Norman knights had ehmm 'saved' England from their current king (someone magnificently named Ethelred the Unready) in 1066. And about 100 years later the same group of guys left England to 'save' Ireland from THEIR king, only there were so many kings in Ireland the Normans couldn't quite figure out which one they were saving the Irish from! Same enterprising fellows tipped up in Sicily about the same time, and although there were Muslim in Sicily there were also Greek Orthodox and they all coexisted uneasily for about a century or so. Well, the Lord helps those & all that..

England and Ireland were Christian when the Normans arrived so there was no pretence of converting--no, it was straight plunder. Primogeniture meant only oldest son inherited & there were a lot of surplus sons. And the land was rich and they could fight! So the Normans were looking for land ripe for an uninvited occupier--like themselves! I would say even if the pontiff had NOT called a crusade the Normans would have tried a little rape and pillage in the Holy Land in any case.

End of potted view of Normans. And England. And Ireland. And Crusades.

Best to all....

The hatred has been in that region for a long time. The U.S did not import it, actually it is driven by statute( Islam). I agree something should be done, escalation is just that and will not solve the problem. Iraq has become a money pit which can no longer be helped by more troops, that should have been done years ago. There is obviously a reality disconnect, not only by our president, but by most of the leaders in that region and having an Iranian leader speak to Americans about what ails us is as the Bible states"pointing out that we have a splinter in our eye when you have a log in yours", thank you for your interest now leave us alone!

Well, it looks like the just war discussion is over. Summing up I would say it was quite clearly shown that the Christian way is non-violent, the disciples & the early Christians striving as they did to emulate the perfect being, Jesus Christ.

So if one is going to take Christianity literally--that is word-perfect or completely ‘by the Book’--one would be a pacifist in the tradition of the Amish, some of the Moravian sects in Protestantism, or some of the monastic groups of the Roman Catholic faith. For me, I always get a little shiver—this THIS! is what religion should be--when I read St Paul’s words:

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.

But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” St Paul to the Romans 12: 19-21

Yet where is this fundamental Christian pacifism in American so-called Christian fundamentalists? These cheerfully supported the Iraq invasion, showed no remorse when Israel bombed and killed hundreds of defenceless innocents in Lebanon & will probably be the loudest of cheerleaders when America bombs Iran. The Zionist evangelicals (like Chuck Colson) seem to have hijacked American Christianity. They are in the minority of Christians, but they shout the loudest...The Zionist evangelicals are allied with the American Israel lobby that in turn has close links with some extremely right wing parties in Israel itself. It is an unholy alliance that glorifies war and exults in power—an unholy trinity that is about as far from the message of Christianity as you can get.

FATE- I obviously dont have that control over these boards- i didnt mention bush- but americans responsibility- and simply reminded us that the question (which i humbly canot take credit for- but thank you for imagining i have that power) is 'IS THE IRAQ WAR JUST? i think trying to realign to the talking point would be the oppsite of diverting the topic, who could disagree?

Rushdie is fat and happy in london- the fatwa had no bearing because every muslim knows no fatwa can be issued- it can only be issued by a cohesive muslim governing body- which doesnt exist right now.

Actually ive had no opinion one way or the other about Khatami the man- i made a mild response to a statement he made, thats all.
Peace

Iraqis Love us because we saved them from themselves..... what a laugh. Tell that to the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands who have died at the hands of Crusaders. You would think people would have learned since the first crusade in 1095, these zealots have brought nothing but death and destruction to the middle east.

----------
BSTEW: The same that is preached by the muslim crazies is the same preached by the christian crazies. All that is different is that christians practice hatered through ignorance and muslim fanatics practice hatred through violence. It is the same virus just different strains.
----------

I agree, but the muslim fanatics leave behind dead bodies while the christian fanatics leave behind frustrated and angry but living people. Which virus you want to be infected by?

Let's not forget that the murder of thousands of American citizens on American soil by Islamic extremists took place BEFORE the "occupation" of Iraq... this entire argument is simply a red herring. Islamofacists have hated us for years, and will hate us regardless of whatever excuse du jour they cite to justify their barbarism.

What a lot of hooey! In the first paragraph, Khatami writes:

" ... it was natural to expect the mitigation of crises and a move to secure the long-term interests of the US in this critical region."

What does this mean? This guy does not seem to lack linguistic prowess in English -- I suppose it is possible that a translator wrote the piece, but this "natural" expectation is supposed to have followed upon the protests by the American people and the "sternly unequivocal position adopted by the Congress." What "sternly unequivocal position?"

This idiotic column goes on to state:
"There is no doubt that toppling the despotic and tyrannical regime of Saddam has brought contentment to the people of Iraq and in the region at large."

Oh, so it was a good thing!

Then this moronic observation:

"Not least, Iran, which had withstood harshest of atrocities in the hands of the despotic and predatory regime of Saddam, found satisfaction in witnessing its downfall."

Okay, so Iran is grateful and supports the US invasion! So what are you complaining about Khatami?

This is a propaganda piece with internally contradictory statements. If Iran wants an end to extremism, surely it could do a heck of lot to make that clear.

Total rubbish.

---------------
Victoria: ...He has no authority to lead or mislead. There is no religious heiarchy in islam-
decisions affecting the community are decentralized and effected by a shura- a council of elders and those knowledgeable about islam and the needs of their particular community.
---------------

Victoria, please tell that to Salmund Rushdie. On 14 February 1989, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling the book "The Satanic Verses" blasphemous and a bounty was offered for the death of Rushdie who was thus forced to live in hiding to this day.

Is that what religious leaders do? Put a bounty on someone's head? Know of any other religion in the world, or any other Muslims outside of Iran who would do such a thing? Is it Islamic to require people be killed just for speaking? Please Victoria, I wish to learn more about this lovely religion and the benevolent government of Khatami's Iran.

Cho Lo writes

"Do not blame American please, the Iranian should separate its religious with politics. The root of the problem of Iraq after Post -Saddam era is that the religious extremist involves too much in politics as Iran too!"

Why shouldn't we blame America? It is absurd to me that any American could support this ridiculous Bush foreign policy. It is truly the blind leading the blind. Let me give you some points on why I feel this way:

Point 1. Anybody with common sense knew this war was going to be a mess from the start. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and was not supporting Al Qaieda. No responsible journalist has been able to find a link between Sadaam and other terrorist groups. Even the Bush administration had to retract this claim.

Point 2. What if Iran claimed Mexico was a threat and attacked them pre-emptively? Now, what if Iran and the U.S. had their military capabilities reversed? So, that Iran was the superpower? What would America do in this situation? Yep, you guessed it, the same thing Iran is doing now to America in Iraq. Not confronting us headon but instead through support of forces hostile to America. When does Irans national interest have to be the same as America's. This is why many in the world believe America is an Imperialist country with plans of dominanting the world. If not, then why can't Iran, North Korea, and other countries not have the Atom Bomb. Especially, when America has at last count over 50,000!

Point 3. During the Iraq and Iranian war America supported Iraq. Even when Iraq gassed thousands of Iranian soldiers. What did America do when this happened? Yeah, that's right....Nothing! So, please don't act indignant when others are gassed like the Kurds and now America has this "moral outrage".

Point 4. Is there really a country more religiously fanatic than the U.S.? With regard to western countries I think not. America is led by a President who thinks a supreme being talks to him. Any political candidate who claims to be atheist does not have a chance to be elected. Most Americans beleive in the literal interpetation of a 2000 year old book that is filled with stories we would not rationally have are kids beleive. (by the way muslims, the jewish faith, and any literal religions are just as bad). The real problem with America is fundalmentalism. The same that is preached by the muslim crazies is the same preached by the christian crazies. All that is different is that christians practice hatered through ignorance and muslim fanatics practice hatred through violence. It is the same virus just different strains.

Point 5. History Matters! Americans have the least knowledge of other countries and cultures then any other society on the face of this earth. Our love affair with technology, abundance, and the make beleive world of entertainment have hardened our souls and our senses to the plights of others. We have in essence become a nation of zombies whose main pastimes our trying to become famous, create our on blog, and see who won the latest round between Rosie and Donald. We think the world just started 20 years ago and anything that happened before hand cannot be our responsibility. "I didn't own slaves", 'Those Palestinians don't want peace", "Why don't the Iraqi's take control of their own country?" All of these views have in common the American virtue of social/historical Amnesia. Simply, put History matters and the bad decisions of yesterday will "blowback" to haunt us today. Remeber Sadaam? We put him in power as a way to stablize we thought that country as well as counter balance Iran. We were primarily interested in continuing the free flow of the black gold...oil. Remember, we made this decision because it was in our own self interest. Instead of the interest of the common good. As a result, we created the mess we are in today. By the way, we also installed the Sha Of Iran who was a brutal dictator. So much so that a brand of religious fundamentalism was created. This brought Khomeni and the rest of the Ahyatolla's to power. And in essence spawned Osama Bin Laden. So see America, History truly matters. Just like your parents have a say in who you are today, so does the past actions of America have a say in the situations we encounter today.

Science has been dropped...

Bob, Apples and Oranges. Dialogue has prevented more wars than outright aggression. It was outright aggression that started this mess to begin with. The only thing WWII and this war have in common is that lies were told to get them going. Hitler lied about Poland attacking Germany and Bush lied about WMD..etc.

Fred , Bos

ADR
Only one void of any political insightfulness and a clear understanding of the word terrorism , would have such a conclusion and view of the greatest piece of real estate on this planet .
Otherwise , when the word terrorism is spoken, the title belongs to an exclusive club, with no one else even coming close , even if they wanted to .

at the risk of being called "unamerican"-

exactly true- we have to take responsibility for our actions as americans- finger pointing is only a distraction- blaming the other is only avoidance of our own actions- the post is -IS THE WAR IN IRAQ JUST?

not ARE WE TRYING TO CONVINCE OURSELVES TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN, OW THAT IRAQ IS UNTENABLE?

as as been said- who wants to tell another boy to go and die?

isnt it enough already?

If only Roosevelt woulda had a dialogue with Hitler.......

At this point it is my firm belief that Suadi Arabia is supporting/funding/equipping the Suni (minority) insurgency while the Iranians are suporting/funding/equipping the Shia (majority). With US soldiers nothing more than convienant targets in the middle. If the defacto supporters of the insurgencies would work together to end the slaughter, the US could withdraw from the occupation, the oil contracts be damned. Hopefully at that point Iraq would be free to actually govern themselves. Then at some point the Haig could formally look to this mess and determine if war crime charges could/should be brought. By the way, the Hundreds of Billions of dollars spent on the desruction/occupation would be much better served rebuilding the country.

At least this cat has a better understanding of the English language than George W. Bush. Ignorance is our greatest enemy.

For national interest, Iran talk the talk, we US HAS to walk the walk!
Do not blame American please, the Iranian should separate its religious with politics. The root of the problem of Iraq after Post -Saddam era is that the religious extremist involves too much in politics as Iran too! As a former President, Mr Kahaimi wrote a biased analysis about Iran and US. As a former Iran Leader, he should find the root of problems in Iran. Why they still use the frantic Islamic religious sort of politics to rule its people! Who has the right to say to purge Israel, a legal status and entity in this world? I would like Mr.Khafami to write more about their President erratic behavior and repugnant speech ! It is danger and easily to beckon gun fire! Not help tho Iran!

I hate to admit that the fact that Mr. Khatami used the phrase 'war-mongering' made it very hard for me to be open minded to the content of his essay. I have the same reaction when someone blames society's ills on 'the man'.

Mr.Khatami:

"Our beloved Iraq"? Does that include the Iraqi Sunni and Kurds as well? I think not!

What, Sir, are you doing to prevent your government's escalation of tensions in the region?
Or, do you deny Tehran's funding and instigation of sectarian violence and terrorism?

I find it lamentable that so many innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives due to this conflict. However, it is hypocritical of you to infer all of their deaths at the hands of the United States! Particularly in view of the fact that, so many died as a result of the indescriminate acts of homicide bombers...many of which were trained and funded by Iran.

Sir: There are, no doubt, fools in every Country.
If your desire is to lie to, and mislead a Country's people, I'd suggest staying closer to home. You wear thin upon my patience!

Actually i thought that it was very divisive of bush to demand that maliki meet with him a few weeks ago when sadr and his followers declared they opposed the meeting and would walk out of the government if maliki went. which he did and they did.

maliki said last week on bbc news that he does not want to run again and wishes he could quit today.

bush knew exactly the ruinous and divisive effect his demand of a meeting would cost maliki- he knew that it would be perceived as it was- the puppetmaster pulling the strings of the puppet...

Dear Mr. Khatami,

Thank you for taking the time to write your views (and thanks to the Post for publishing them.) Hopefully you have not read the more egregious responses—some betraying ignorance, some giving offence, some combining both. Your argument was fuzzy, but then, although out of office, you are a politician and need to watch what you say.

But what you didn’t say is that the US’s ill-judged war has resulted in the removal of one of Iran’s greatest enemies, and that Iran has been a big gainer in the demise of Baathist Iraq (Israel has been another). Still, Iran did not urge on the invasion and you do mention your—rather peremptorily disregarded--proposal for a regional authority to deal with the removal of Saddam…peacefully.

Why do you suppose the Americans are so determined to (mis)manage the affairs of the region? How can they think they will succeed—being, as they are, of the wrong religion and with their strong Israeli affiliation? In fact, surveys show opinion in the ME considers Israel a US protectorate & I think that is a fair assessment.

American actions since Sept. 2002 IMO seem like bad chess: at a cost of two of their bishops they remove Saddam’s rook, this clears the way for the bishop (Iran) previously blocked by Saddam’s castle, next they’ll aim for the bishop and this will enable Russia to move her queen into position…They’re losing, and what’s worse Bush & co. don’t even know it!

Well, I agree with Mr KMB and think that Iran should stall for time. During that period read up on the Monroe Doctrine, the young America’s warning to Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. You need a variation of that for the Middle East.

Best Regards,
Mary Cunningham
London, UK

There is a very old teaching from India “it is the intelligence in figuring out the truth of whatever being said by whomever”
“I suggest that the American people be more acutely alarmed by the pernicious policies that are formulated and implemented with the aim of fanning the flames of tribal, sectarian, and ethnic conflict in Iraq. This is perpetrated in order to rationalize the continued presence of occupying forces there. Should this fire be allowed to spread, nothing will be saved. Particularly, it will bring the fledgling democracy in Iraq to its collapse.”
This above paragraph has the truth. The American public does not realize that almost half of the “decks of cards” of the most wanted of Saddams regime are Shiites!
Even though it is true that the hatred exists between the two main sects of Islam, it is also true there were so many inter-marriages and all kinds of social, cultural interactions happened under Saddam in Iraq.
Has anyone claimed responsibility for the bombing of the golden mosque of Samara which triggered this civil war last year big time? Hope the future generations will find out.

Herr Excellency !! In the last, your honour shows the real face as a leader of a chauvanist, cruel, dominant and oppressive nation to supress their subordinates and the ethnic groups by saying that "specially, ethnic and secretarian separtism must stop".

We understand that in the developed "democracy"
religion is not allowed to run the affairs of the State. Religion is regarded as a private businiess of the citizens to just follow the habits, routines, customs and civilisation of your ancestors. This is the same story with different secretarians within a religion.

But to avoid a group of a nation, on ethnic basis having same language, culture and geography, who strive to establish their own "State" is just a crime. A crime against humanity and voilation of United Nations Charter.

If your Highness opposes the right of self-determination of a small nation, we think, your Excellency is following the foot-prints of Adolf Hitler, who advocated his own major and cruel nation as super and had a "license to kill"
the subordinate and ethnic groups in Germany and in Europe.

We request your Excellency to stop the killings of Balochs, Kurds, Ahwazis and others in broad day of light and throwing them on the roads to whow your crimes to the public as they should be scared and shut their mouths !!

We request your Excellency, to accept the right of self-determination of all the ethnic groups of Iran. Think, as you claim yourself to be a religious spritual leader, that GOD has created this beautiful planet for all human beings including all the ethnic groups. All must enjoy the "right to live" on the earth, the only plant in the universe where "LIFE" exists !!

This is just like when Senator Kerry wrote... tonnes of ridiculous pro-war comments. Mr. Khatami is trying to say something important here, just like Mr. Kerry. But alas, why is it conservative commentary is always launched with great passion and vitriol, while any other commentary is politely not spoken or crushed under the volume of the angry conservative reaction. I hope all the angry people know they are just getting tuned-out.

Mr. President Mohammad Khatami:

I trust you will not be too offended by the rather large number of offensive posts. I’m somewhat dismayed at these myself.

First, I agree with you that this was not a “Just War”, although I’m befuddled at your reasoning. I simply note that we were not in the least threatened in any way by Iraq and we had suffered from no attack or injury by Iraq, thus we had no justification from a self-defence point of view. The UN Security Council declined to authorize such a war. Apart from just being wrong (completely unjustified), it was also a foolish thing to do, stupid is perhaps the better word. The potential problems between Sunni vs Shia and Kurds vs Arabs was predictable and predicted. To say we were asinine to undertake this war would not be an overstatement.

Having said that, I would none the less quarrel with some of the things you have said. E.G. “I suggest that the American people be more acutely alarmed by the pernicious policies that are formulated and implemented with the aim of fanning the flames of tribal, sectarian, and ethnic conflict in Iraq.” Sir, “aim” is the wrong word, the wrong idea. You mistake sheer incompetence for Machiavellian purpose. In actual fact, fanning those local Iraqi flames is and was entirely contrary to our best interests. In fact it is contrary to almost everyone’s interests, except the extremist groups.

You also wrote: “1) Terminate the occupation, cut off the root cause of conflict, and thereby disarm violent extremism.” It is not the occupation that is the root cause of current violence in Iraq. It is the age old Sunni/Shia competition and strife, particularly virulent in Iraq because under Saddam the Sunni minority dominated, sometimes viciously, the Shia majority. I surely wish it were as simple as ending the occupation and bringing our soldiers back home, but having created this current mess, we are stuck with departing in a responsible manner. It would not due to simply leave the Sunni and the Shia to slaughter each other at will. So, before we leave we need to establish Iraqi security forces up to the task of managing that conflict adequately. Iran, and others, can make our task easier or harder, so you have some control over advancing or delaying our departure.

My suggestion to you is to keep your current President’s speeches just a little bit less provocative and stretch out the nuclear negotiations for a couple of years. There is a very good chance that in 2008 we will clean our house of the neocons who think they rule the world. Hopefully the new guys will be a little more reasonable to negotiate with.

Please understand we do not want to be there. Mr. Bush doesn't want us to be there, and there isn't anyone in the US who wants us there. We want to be gone, but it would not be the responsible thing to do, because there is too much stupid violence there.

The US wants Iraq to be stable so that we can leave. Yes, we would like to maintain a good relationship with the country, but that's not much to ask for given the effort that's taken place to try to free the Iraqi people and make the region more stable.

The level of intolerance in Iraq, and in the Middle East in general needs to be greatly reduced, and the US disengaging from the region will not help.

Your Excellency Katami

The Middle East so urgently needs a Mahatma Gandhi who preaches non-violence, helps Muslims of all sects to feel like brothers, who live in peace, not only among themselves but also in peace with the Jews and Christians in the Middle East. The Muslim, Jewish and Christian cultures in the Middle East have so much to offer the world. In school (in India) I learnt the verses of Kabir, a Sufi mystic, who was claimed by Muslims and Hindus alike as their own. It left a deep impression on my young mind. I'm sure the Muslim tradition in the Middle East has similar mystics, who have preached love for all.

Thank you for all the work you do to increase understanding among peoples of different nations and religions.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Mr Khatami's points are very civil, articulate, appreciable.

There is no good reason for the US to be in Iraq, to threaten Iran beyond rationally careful diplomacy (not ignoring the history of purges and current rhetoric and implication of the present regime).

At the same time, as currently constructed, Iran is the primary beneficiary of the US invasion of Iraq, and can only retain that status so long as a transition can be made to a stable Shia dominated government.

If the Shia governments can soberly convince the rest of the world that minorities rights are confidently secure and EQUAL as individuals (not as blocs), then Mr. Khatami's points can be acted on.

Historically and currently, that is NOT the case. Iran is militant, and hoping to expand its influence through peaceful means. Again, if the recent history of Iran did not include sponsorship of holocaust-denial conferences as primary focuses of its governmental foreign policy (even if "only" symbolic), then the world might have more confidence that Mr. Khatami's comments actually manifested sincere intent if not actual promises, and not just good spin.

I suspect that Mr. Khatami means well, but reform must also happen among internal Iranian functions to be believable.

Mr K. can only be a president in iran.Mr K is stupid if he thinks if the US leaves the muslims will hug each other and be brothers and sisters what MR k should realize is because of the President these muslims are killing each other slowly Mr KI do not know if the Post paid you for your article but this much I would like to plead-please turn your religon into a peaceful religon and you will have all nations in this world as you friends and it is you only you and your muslim people are responsible and NEVER USAor Mr Bush -100 years from now Mr Bush will go down in history as valiant fighter who defeated the war mongers
thx

Bottom line: Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil and one of the reasons we are in Iraq is to keep the Evil from spreading.

And I must reiterate: Sunnis butcher Shiites and vice versa because of some Dark Age disagreement of the "decendentcies" of Mohammed. What better proof that the Muslim religion fails miserably as a rational belief. Such hatred for fellow Muslims is beyond significant stupidity.

And an open Internet in this Evil country would fast bring it to reality and maturity but we know that will not happen. Maybe the ex-President could tell us why the citizens of Iran do not have free access to an open Internet.

As for me (a non-American), Mr. Khatami does make few valid points like US should have engaged neighbours and UN before going in. Now its only the americans who are shouldering the whole country with dollars and more important lives.

I have stayed in US for a decent amount of time, nice and decent people americans are. But one thing I really could not figure out is that why is american govt. so pig-headed when it comes to foreign policies they always tend to rub other countries the wrong way, I guess its a combination of arrogance and ignorance. The list makes quite a reading vietnam to start with and in recent history Israel and Palastine, Iraq, North Korea or Pakistan.

Bush went in with the assumption that there would be WMDs (that was BIG lie, I hope americans make him pay for that) and american forces would be treated as liberators (well this one is still being argued over) and obviously a (bigger) scapegoat was required for 9/11.

On a sidenote, if I were from Iran (I am from India btw), it makes a very valid argument to have WMD just to keep american forces (in Iraq) think twice before they attack Iran. To add to the tension, Bush govt. is not really when they say "all options are on table".

Coming back to Iraq, agreed Saddam was BAD, but so is Kim Jong (North Korea's crazy leader) or the Saudi King or the Egypt President. So there are double standards on how this "war on terror" is being run. Kim Jong is crazy enough to sell a nuke to finance his new Bentley (he is already involved in selling nuke tech. with Pakistan).

I guess now the US govt. is playing for time. The cleanup will have to be done by the next president. There is no win-win in Iraq now, its just a matter of cutting your losses. I just hope americans dont let Bush get away with 3000+ american lives and the numerous Iraqis (I guess 200,000 would be an understatement).

Means dont justify the ends

Was the desire to remove Saddam a good thing? Of course, he was a cruel dicrator destabilizing the region, torturing and killing ppl.

Was the removal of Saddam the way it was done a good thing? No. Because:

1) It was done unilaterally without getting support of other nations, most importantly, from this region.

2) It entailed numerous civilian casualties. In doing so we became similar to Saddam himself.

3) It entailed a vast ethnic and religious conflict to which theres no end.

Dear President Khatami,

I appreciate your taking the time to write to us as Americans, because dialog can only move us toward mutual understanding. That said, I will respectfully disagree with your idea that an immediate withdrawal is the best course. There is already ethnic cleansing going on in the mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad. This usually degenerates into large-scale genocide, which all reasoning people, people of God or not, must seek to avoid. As unfortunate as the choices which led us into Iraq were, we are there now, as are you. We, and you, must now work to avoid a blood bath. So I see no good in simply walking out and letting it happen.

Peace among the Shiites, Sunnis, Israelis, Palestinians, and everyone else depends on our fundamental commitment to the self evident truth that we are all endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we can get back to that basic understanding, maybe we can find a way to a better future. I personally believe God and history will judge us all harshly for failure.

Sincerely,

The Moderate

To His Excellency Mohammad Khatami, with cooler mind and quiet heart I see that we are both on the side of Allah. Thank you Sir. Thank you. God Bless you and the entire nation of Iran. May we find common ground upon which to move forward. I hope and pray that our countries will find good and lasting friendship in this matter through the U.N. and on all such matters in the Middle East. Perhaps we may be permitted to help to turn it into Middle Eden by your own hand. Yes I agree, one day at a time. Submitted for your kind consideration on this day January 16, 2007

SHILLUM wrote:

"These are certainly good suggestions, but they lack the realism that is connected with the ruling elite. Your suggestions presuppose a noble cause in the actions of the United States. The United States is not a noble country. It is being used by the internationalists to take power. Sadly, this is the nature of man. Give a man a gun, and he will use it.

The reason the Muslim Middle East is being decimated now, is that they are basically against Zionism and they have the power to effect the flow of oil and money to a degree. What the power elite wants, is to so weaken the Middle Eastern people that they would not dare to rebel against the western interests there. The situation in Iraq is not a mistake. It is the plan, albeit not an advertised plan. We are in the midst of an international grab of power and influence, but sadly it will all fail, and our world will come to its end, probably in a nuclear holocaust."