Le Monde has an English translation of Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad’s letter to George Bush.
It doesn’t have a lot to do with diplomacy, not as we practice it.
And, as always, since it’s a translation – note the post below on the issues with good translations.
I’ll just quote the closing lines:
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-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Hmmm.
Wow.
It’s going to take me a while to digest the full implications of that letter, but…. Wow.
Let me say for now that it tends to support one of my theories about why Al Queda has not attacked the US directly since 9/11, and it doesn’t bode well for what the next President will face.
It an oddly perceptive document and a remarkable peice of propaganda, but you are right, its entirely wrong to view this document as if it comes from any modern tradition. This isn’t diplomacy as the West has practiced it in a very long time, and I can’t help but wonder now to what extent he hit his mark in aiming this at George Bush and to what extent he hit a phantom created by what was in the West anti-Bush propaganda.
Perhaps a little of both.
Is that the ritual “Please Convert to Islam” that’s supposed to be issued before they start hostilities?
Reads like a failed bid to be on the new UN Human Rights Council.
It seems as if the president of Iran understands that some of his most important allies are not the Chinese or the Russians, but various individuals in the US and the rest of the West whom we label as ‘left’ or ‘socialist’ or any of a list of terms used to describe agendas of people like Chavez or the Daily Kos gang.
The letter does show me though that the president of Iran has a skill in manipulating people’s attention on a world stage that simply outclasses that of Pres Bush. I doubt Bush could one-up him on anything wrt propaganda.
One thought on a possible reply (though unlikely in this day and age) by Bush: instead of a lengthy letter just a short note, possible on a small yellow PostIt, simply quoting:
_”He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood…”_ and _”Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.”_ _-Love, W_
and simply let Ahmadi-Najad worry about figuring out.
Of course, if any such note fell into the hands of western media there would be apoplexies among the editors and pundits.
I have to agree….wow…. It does make me wonder about their perceptions though. We complain about our MSM and slanting of the news, I wonder if they are just as insulated by their own sources. It most assuredly seems to me to be aimed directly at the western press.
Its inconceivable to me that this letter was not intended to be released.
He sends hugs and kisses to Hugo Chavez, and condolences to victims of empire in Africa. If its not an expression of hegemonic ambitions, its an exercise in line-drawing between liberal democracies and . . . something else.
Don’t forget the ‘why are you picking on the poor duely elected government of Palestine’..
I do like Freeto’s suggestion for a reply, but I’m afraid Mr. “I saw a glowing light around me as I spoke” would translate that as one more sign that the 12th Iman is iminent.
_It seems as if the president of Iran understands that some of his most important allies are not the Chinese or the Russians_
Or it may be that these are allies that the Iranian president feels are already on board. The letter might simply be focussed on wedge nations, like Latin American countries being courted by Chavez, unstable African nations and Western leftists sypathetic to the Palestianian cause.
So how do those that have purported to be hysterical about Bush’s supposed fundamentalist zealotry react to something like this? If Bush is too religious to head a major nation, what does that make Ahmadinejad? What is the response of the transcendental securlarist-left?
Aside from a few intellectually honest leftists, it will be ignored completely. The most reactionary, anti-woman, anti-democratic forces in the world send a letter like that to the president of the United States, and it will be ignored. It has to be, because the anti-Bush coallition is so invested in destroying Bush here at home, they have no way to engage in this. Constantly they have to make a choice, and they choose to ignore or placate the fascist fundamentalists and go to war with Bush. Amazing.
Don’t forget the thinly veiled Holocaust denial (let us “assume” that six million Jews died).
That plus the appeal to Bush’s common religiosity and exceeding the politely acceptable number of references to Jesus Christ (PBUH) in a letter (no more than five), means that the letter will ultimately find little sympathy on the Left.
celebrim #1: Which theory is that about why AQ hasn’t hit us here since 9/11?
freeto #4: Phil has a point about the likely interpretation of any Biblically-inspired response. How about something from more recent history? We’ve used this one in response to other demands to surrender, after all:
“NUTS!”
Are you sure that Howard Dean didn’t write that?
Please Don’t question Ahmadi-Najad’s patriotism – that’s a bit too divisive.
Kind of surprised by the posts. I’d almost lay odds that a sizeable portion of Le Monde readers(and employees) see that and think “Gee, why are these two having such problems? They are so much alike!” I mean that is the abiding undercurrent when it comes to BDS, right? That he is a crazed theocrat on a crusade to save/punish the unbelievers. Hop over to almost any Libertarian/Left blog and I’m sure you’ll find atleast a dozen or so people within a minute to claim that very thing. Of course sane people see it as the ravings of a wannabe messiah but moonbats undoubtedly see this as a resume for the position of Bush soulmate.
Ahmadi-Najad’s patriotism?
Did anyone else think he was a bit soft on Saddam:
bq. _Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. *But . . .*_
Tonite on Al Jazeera: Point/counterpoint — is Ahmadi-Najad soft on Saddam?
Gramarye #11: There are several reasons why I’d be willing to ghost-write that response for Bush, the most important being that I agree with VDH that the best thing to do is give the Iranian president more rope.
I was just checking out the BBC online site, looking to see how they handled this issue and a few others. It is amazing to see what that once most famous of English language news organizations has turned into. For example, on the letter here is part of the BBC news article:
_Most Iranians know that the relationship with the US is at the root cause of their problems and that to be solved the nuclear issue needs direct talks with America._
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754161.stm
Note that the reporter does not suggest that the “Iranians” could be quite misinformed. Somehow, it is all the US’ fault. All their problems are our fault.
So, in face of such a world order, where a troublingly large percentage of the modern intelligentsia find it more acceptable to ignore the realities of a psychopathic Ahmadi-Najad so they can pursue their Bush-hatred/America-envy, what is the best thing to do in the long run?
I’d say let Ahmadi-Najad go to the edge, and take as many of his blind supporters with him. The few who come to their senses as the edge approaches will become allies against similar threats.
The reality is it will take several more months (perhaps 2 years) before Iran is even close to developing a weapon, and we are unlikely to do a military strike before then.
Since Ahmadinajad is on a justice and human rights binge, maybe he could give some information on these Iranians whose fate is currently unknown:
Najmeh Vosouq-Razavi, female law student, sentenced to death by hanging for unknown crime
Mandana Nikkhou, sentenced to death by hanging for unknown crime
Faeze A., sentenced to death by hanging for unknown crime
Leyla Mafi, aged 18, sentenced to death by hanging for “moral offences”
Hajiyeh Esma’eilvand, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery
Soqra, full name unknown, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery
Massoumeh, full name unknown, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery
Zhila Iazadi, age 13 or 14, sentenced to death by stoning for incest; has already received 50 lashes in prison
The minimum age for execution in Iran (by stoning or “slow-strangulation hanging”:http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2004/September/Hanging/index.html) is 15 for boys and 9 for girls. Jesus is not happy about any of this, and might make Ahmadinajad eat his PBUHs one of these days.
“Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But . . .”
Sounds disturbingly familiar. Matter of fact I defy anyone to differentiate the first half of this letter from any given Democratic talking points.
Sounds like the guy is an honest-to-goodness religious nutcase.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. As long as they respect other people’s right to freedom of choice and don’t insist on arming themselves to the teeth and instigating violence elsewhere.
Oh yeah. I guess maybe there IS something wrong with that after all.
In this document, Iran uses every mistake the Bush Administration has made against us. Abu Ghraib and the CIA secret prsions are now coming back to bite us in the butt. They were never worth the price we continue to pay. He also uses mistakes we never made: like surpressing all technological development in the Middle East (well, it would help if you would research something besides weapons), or the implications that 9/11 was caused in part by infiltration of America’s security apparatus… (pauses to surpress laughter)
There are scraps thrown out in the document to virtually every enemy of America that the mullahocracy can think of: the European Left, the Castro/Chavez/Morales Latin Left (which is a different animal), the radical elements of the American Democratic Party (which are, again, different animals); the Africans, who are ready to resent anyone…
But the primary audience is the Middle East, including and especially the domestic audience in Iran. By doing this, they are claiming the *mantle of the righteous jurists*, who question the justice of the decrees made by the corrupt ruler of the empire. Originally, this was a combination of the Biblical prophet calling the nation to righteousness and a principle that the West has called “the independence of the judiciary” [the combination being due to the lack of seperation of mosque and state in Islam]. *They’re hoping no one notices that by creating a theocracy, they have made themselves fellow corrupt rulers of empires.*
*This is not diplomacy at all, but propaganda.* Since we refuse to play by theocratic rules, Iran can now argue that we have refused righteousness and are, by Islamic rules, therefore fair game. *We are _kufr_ by our own confession…. at least, by their warped viewpoint.*
But the most important piece of news is the mechanism by which they come by their enmity to Israel. I hadn’t really internalized their logic. You see, their worldview doesn’t extend back before the seventh century. There was only “ignorance” (of Allah) before then. Nothing that happened beforehand really matters.
And by the seventh century, the Jews were already dispersed. Therefore, according to the strict Islamic mindset, _*the Jews have always been dispersed*_. Jews exist in every country, and always have; and their nationality is whatever country they live in. They are Arabic Jews, Palestinian Jews, German Jews, British Jews, etc. The concept that the Jews were driven out of their home, that the Jewish right of return stems not from a crime of the Germans in 1943 but a crime of the Romans in 0070, just doesn’t penetrate. _It can’t be relevant: it didn’t happen in association with a prophet or Islam._
Therefore, according to this logic, the creation of Israel was an attempt to solve a _purely European problem_ (bad Jewish/Christian relations) that punished poor, innocent Middle East Muslims that had nothing to do with it. In the process, the Muslims created the Palestinian ‘right of return’, not realizing that it was exactly the argument that justified Israel in the first place.
“celebrim #1: Which theory is that about why AQ hasn’t hit us here since 9/11?”
It’s very clear that Osama Bin Ladin and others in the conflict pay alot of attention to the western media. At some level, I’m sure that they are in responding to it engaging in something like propaganda warfare. But its equally clear that to a certain extent they accept the media’s portrayal of the West as valid when it suits thier preconcieved notions.
The loss in Afghanistan doesn’t suit thier preconcieved notions. It becomes necessary to explain that event. From thier perspective as militant religious zealots, from thier perspective as people who believe in the inherent superiority of such an outlook over Western liberalism (as they percieve it), the most compelling explanation offered by the media that they can believe is that Bush is a crazy, militant, religious zealot.
We also have a tendancy to err in personalizing this conflict and making it about the evil nemesis. I think that the temptation for the both sides is to personalize this conflict and make it a conflict between themselves and thier nemesis. For Ahmadinjahad and Osama Bin Ladin both, who strike me as something of megalomaniacs, that temptation is probably unavoidable. Bush – as portrayed as a crazy, militant, religious zealot – makes a worthy and dangerous opponent in a dark comic book way. Al Queda’s failure in Afghanistan can then be blamed in part on simply having the ‘bad luck’ of choosing to attack when the enemy had what was (in thier conception at least) ‘a strong leader’. But Al Queda doesn’t really believe in luck (any more than Bush does), and when Bush says things like ‘God wanted me to be President’ I think it doesn’t resonate poorly with our enemies the way it resonates poorly with secularists.
Al Queda’s operational doctrine is theologically based. I think there is a real possibility that Al Queda believes at some level it theologically erred and that there must be in America certain Christians who are nearly enough Islamic in thier practices (as described in the Koran) that they enjoyed some amount of divine providence. Otherwise, thier defeat is theologically inexplicable in thier own terms.
In making a myth out of Bush in an attempt to demonize him, the press managed to make of him, or more to the point of the myth of him, a worthy and frightening foe who does the very sorts of extreme things they thought the West incapable of doing.
I see in Ahmadinjad’s letter the sort of diplomacy which in the West now occurs only in comic books. I see in Ahmadinajah’s appeal a reflection of how Ahmadinajad sees his own role in the conflict and how he boils down the conflict in his head. He dismisses all of the secular West as irrelevant with the stroke of a pin. He sees Osama’s failure as a failure to offer fair terms to a ‘people of the Book’, and the consequent disaster as Allah’s judgment against a group deserving of partial protection. He offers the misguided but noble Bush a chance to join forces, and proposes to resolve the conflict and advert war through a theological debate.
I think that this is aimed at the press but only to some extent. This is not a modern document, and I don’t think its motivated by modern thinking. Speaking as a religious person, this is well aimed religious document or at least one that successfully feigns it in a way that I’ve rarely seen non-religious people manage. I think that we should consider that he really is aiming for Bush, that he really does think that the non-theological aspect of the conflict is dismissable as irrelevant, and that to the extent that this doesn’t have an audience only in Bush its an attack on Bush’s percieved Christian support and his attempt to win them over to the ‘true path’.
Consider that alot of times I and others felt that the pluralist Liberals (‘liberals’) have used to the maxim ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ to paradoxically ally themselves with violent fundamentalist sectarians against the non-pluralists Liberals (‘conservatives’). I can’t help but thinking that some of the letter is an offer to Bush to join against a common enemy as Ahmadinjahad percieves Bush’s problems.
This is mythic stuff.
“Bush, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy.”
Unfortunately, that’s not funny, and I suspect it would strike one of the ‘liberals’ with BDS as even more ‘not-funny’. Right now, I’m just sort of rambling stream of conciousness, so pardon me if this is unorganized and disjointed. As I said, its going to take alot of thinking for me to be able to fully develop my responce to that document.
I’m reminded also of ‘Lawerence of Arabia’ though, and at the risk of having myself labeled an Orientalist and completely misunderstood, I’m reminded of the idea in the movie that the only sort of Westerner which would recieve respect within that culture is one which by Western standards is completely insane. My point being not that Bush is insane, but that it really doesn’t matter for this purposes whether he is or not. I think he’s percieved as what we would consider insane and bizarrely is respected for it by people we percieve as insane.
Maybe I’m babbling at this point. I’m not sure any of that parsed, and I’m less sure I didn’t just repeat myself alot. I’ve got alot of things to think about, so I’ll shut up and think about this awhile.
Check ou this part:
“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”
Hmmm!
why am I puzzled?
This reminds me of another question that’s occurred to me, given the political atmosphere of the times we live in. “Letting Ahmadinejad go to the edge” may well not be enough; in the current political climate, no matter what he says, it may well not be enough to spark sufficient political capital here for decisive action against him. Bush would have to going him into _doing_ something stupid. In fact, even if Iran actually acts against us, it might not be the wellspring of political capital that 9/11 was.
There have been conspiracy theories floated about FDR in this vein: that he deliberately provoked Japan into an attack and allowed it to be very visual and destructive in order to muster popular support for a war that would otherwise have been viewed as an unnecessary, imperial, foreign adventure. I’m not going to pass judgment on wild conjectures like that regarding events of more than 60 years ago, but there may be a nugget of truth in the notion that America would actually rather absorb the first punch than launch it. The cynical Machiavellian calculation that one is invited to draw from this is that it’s actually better for an American political leader to let America get hit first, and then do all the retaliatory damage one can before the popular fury fades.
The problem with this (aside from the obvious moral problems of the commander-in-chief allowing the country he’s sworn to protect get hit) is that we’ve already gotten hit once with Bush in office and there might be more than a hint of “fool me once/fool me twice” thinking among the public at the moment. Would even another attack on the U.S. send Bush’s approval rating to 90% again? I honestly doubt it. There would be some inevitable rallying to the flag, of course, but there would be an inevitable (and, to certain segments of the American political spectrum, irresistible) temptation to blame the attack itself on Bush, rather than the perpetrators. A second failure; proof that our preventive-war strategy did in fact ‘make us less secure,’ as they’ve maintained all along; etc.
And the problem with anything less is that the president’s bank of political capital has been long since overdrafted. Even if Bush received ironclad intelligence today that said that Iran would have a bomb by the end of the month and an assembly line capable of manufacturing 2-3 more per month henceforth, he might not be able to do anything on that news alone, and by the time his successor takes office, it would be simply an accepted fact of the international system that Iran is a nuclear state.
Ironically, at the moment, Ahmadinejad himself is likely the only actor with the potential to make the case for regime change in Tehran … and he just might be doing it.
Good comments, Gramarye.
I’d like to take issue with one point, however
“…we’ve already gotten hit once with Bush …”
If you think that WMD was the entire reason for the war, then yes, you are correct. If you think it is the 20 UNSEC binding resolutions, attack on old Bush, Congressional resolution during the Clinton years to remove Saddam, or the need to take out Saddam as a bad actor after 9-11 in order to free up the containment forces, then you are not.
In either case, no matter who the president is or the party, the public seems to easily flip away from conflict. Quite frankly, they don’t want to fight Iran no matter what. There will always be political captial to gain by saying something like “we should just give diplomacy one more shot” and people will always want to believe there is some way out.
The die is cast: we’re not going to fight Iran any time in the next year or so. After that, perhaps. But even then I think it is a long shot. We simply don’t want to fight anyone any more, 9-11 or no. Even if it is clearly in our best interests. And little punk states like Iran know it.
Here’s a letter I would have written on behalf of President Bush:
Dear President Ahmadinejad,
Thank you very much for your lengthy letter. For the sake of argument lets say that everything you say is true. Lets admit that the my administration has committed the crimes in which you have mentioned. My question to you, is how this justifies the repression of human rights and democracy in which your administration, your government and your supporters actively engage in. You say that you are a peace-loving man. You campaigned for greater social freedoms. And yet your government represses the very people which seek to make it grow. Is there any doubt that had your government allowed a full and free election wherein over 95% of electoral candidates would not have been vetoed due to their disagreements with your conservative establishment, that there is no doubt whatsoever that you would not be sitting as President today.
Why do your youth flock toward my country for education and opportunity? Why do your youth seek greater freedoms and state their love for American values? Why do your youth continously object toward your regime? You attack my government’s foreign policy and I thank you for that. But is it not ironic that if someone in your country had leveled the same criticism against your government as you have done against mine, that they would have been tortured and sent to jail. Is it not ironic that had someone in your society openly attacked your government for human rights abuses and for not comporting with the religious values you assume to possess, that they would be sitting in Evin and possibly facing the death penalty as was the case with Saleh Nikbakht, Akbar Ganji, and now possibly Ramin Jahanbegloo. If I was to write the names of all those who have been innocently tortured and imprisoned by your government and under your leadership the pages would exceed number of pages devoted toward outlining your revolution. President Ahmadinejad, your opponents, your dissidents, and your critics have been heralded as heros. Is that not the greatest testament to the atrocities so many feel are being committed by your regime?
I ask you, was it not Prophet Muhammad who preached tolerance for people of different faiths? And yet your government continues to disenfranchise, torture, and discriminate against Bahai’s. Was it not the Prophet who emphasized the importance of free speech and thought? And yet countless newspapers have been shut down, numerous bloggers and journalists have been imprisoned, and your intellectuals are being silenced and beaten. Was it not Prophet Muhammad who called for humility, compassion, and forgiveness. And yet children face the death penalty in your country. Was it the Prophet who called for free exercise of religion? And yet your government compels the practice of religion, interpreted by a authoritarian few. Lastly, was it not the Prophet who emphasized equality between the sexes? And yet your women are treated as second-class citizens. Can one be a follower of the Prophet Muhammad, the great Messenger of God, while committing and condoning these atrocities?
Once again, thank you for your comments. Your letter reflects the same “azadi” of thought and opinion which the world only waits and hopes your government will fully recognize and deliver to your people.
May peace be with you,
President George W. Bush, United States of America
Dear Mr. President,
RE: “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?”
This is an excellent idea. And here I thought you were some kind of sexually frustrated, genocidal Islamonazi nutcase. Man, that’s the last time I listen to those CIA dorkwads.
I have spoken with the Rev. Billy Graham Jr., and he has kindly agreed to take you up on your offer and baptize you at a revival meeting of your choice. Please let me know when you’ll be coming, and we can arrange a travel visa, etc.
On the other hand, if you’re more of a “72 virgins” type, why wait? I’m sure there’s an Archbishop or two who would be pleased to do the honours and point you to the nearest Catholic girls school, where your charming accent and wild n’ crazy rep should stand you in good stead. It’s no skin off their nose, as you’re not exactly fishing in the same pool if you catch my drift.
bq. “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.”
Yes, it most certainly will. Don’t make us hook you up for a direct conversation.
Sincerely Yours,
ChimpyMcHitler BushHaliburtonDictatorTheocrat
In reply to freeto, comment #4:
I am not an American, I’m British. However, I respectfully suggest that an indirect message might be given to both the UK and to the USA’s real enemies by doing one thing; replace The Star-Spangled Banner as your national anthem with The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Apart from the obvious message, it would also signal to us that you have finally forgiven us for the events of two hundred years ago. Have you, by the way?
Regarding the correct interpretation of the letter, we appear to have a winner, due to a critical point of translation in the New York Sun (link), via Little Green Footballs (link):
“Iran Declares War
New York Sun Editorial
May 11, 2006
President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda.” What this means is “Peace only unto those who follow the true path.”
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira – the late 620s – the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.”
–
Those who said this was the ritual Muslim call to Islam as a preliminary to aggressive war (accompanied in this case by skillful propaganda) were correct, and all fancier interpretations are now trash.
We are faced with people whose intentions toward us, now declared, can be summed up in essence by any Muslim beheading video, and who are invincibly determined to be nuclear armed.
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you for explaining your ideas to me, and to the world. I will respond in kind.
First, I want to explain that the United States of America has been responsible to a diversity of citizens from its beginning. And so we have separated the function of government from religion. Each citizen applies his religious understanding when voting, and each public official and employee uses his religious understanding when working for the government. But our government attempts to completely avoid regulating religions. Probably we would not do it that well. And we give no religion special status in controlling government, except as voters and government workers individually live their beliefs. This has several benefits, and one of them is that since politics can sometimes be a dirty business, we don’t corrupt our religious leaders. There is a saying, “When religion and politics ride the same cart, the whirlwind follows.”
Our laws are intended only to promote the public good, not to enforce religion. In practice the result is not very different, and in court each judge and each jury decides from their own religious beliefs. In general we try to restrict people the minimum we can, consistent with the public good. This allows the good people to be better and the bad people to be worse; on average we think we come out ahead this way.
Similarly we generally believe that our government should interfere with businesses the minimum we can, consistent with the public good. We don’t always follow that belief (as note our sugar industry which despite subsidies and tariffs is priced so high that corn syrup gets a lot of the business) but we usually think we are better off when we do.
We do not want an economic world empire. But some of our businesses have done things in other countries that they would not be allowed to do here. We have not decided what the USA should do about that.
We don’t want a world military empire. We built a strong military back when the british empire and the soviet empire were fighting the nazis and the japanese empire. Then we felt the need to protect the world from the expanding soviet empire. After that we looked for another expanding empire to oppose. This seemed both easier and safer than giving up our organised military and starting from scratch when a new threat appeared.
And I should mention our nuclear weapons. We have spent a tremendous amount of money on nuclear weapons, and in some places we have contaminated our soil and groundwater. We haven’t gotten much from it except the satisfaction that if someone else uses nuclear weapons to kill us all we can kill them back. Looking back on it, we would have done better with a pretend nuclear weapons program, with a few weapons to test and a lot of fake ones — provided that no utterly-insane enemy found out. It is taking us a long time to wrestle with our fears about nuclear weapons. We have nearly 10,000 of them and we would probably be better off if we reduced that to 1000 or even less, but we aren’t ready to. We want there to never be a nuclear war anywhere on the planet, and while so many of us think that our 10,000 weapons make that less likely, we can’t throw them out. Nuclear weapons are a curse on the world, but it will take time to get rid of them.
That brings me to something specific. My country is predisposed to see emerging empires that are trying to get nuclear weapons. Winning wars against such countries is a way to justify our vast military expense. We thought we saw that in iraq and we were wrong. I would dearly love to find out we’re wrong about you too. I will send you privately a plan you could use to show the world you are not attempting and will not attempt to make nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not actually much use to your country any more than they are to mine. In return I would welcome a private message listing things my country could do in return. List anything you like; I might be able to provide one of them easier than another. Maybe we can make a deal we’d both want. It could be the start to much friendlier relations, and neither of us has anything to lose by trying.
In God we trust,
———-
PS: Some americans have taken the ending of your letter “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda.” to be a declaration of war. Would you mind publicly clarifying just what this phrase in your letter means to you?