The Bush regime dismissed the letter that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent in a historic overture which hasn't occurred in the years of simmering hostility between leaders of the sovereign nation and the U.S. government. But, the letter was dismissed out of hand as a 'ploy', so, it's clear that this administration isn't looking for a diplomatic way out of the controversy over Iran's nuclear program and their intention to process their own uranium.
"Absence of communication is not the problem with Iran." Rice said in response to the letter.
The secretary pushed Iran away with the twisted rhetoric our government representatives use when they want to mislead observers about Iran's nuclear intentions, which Ahmadinejad has said over and over is in pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy for his country.
Again, the stated intention of Iran is that its nuclear activities are not for any weapon, and the U.N. atomic inspectors haven't been able to produce any evidence at all that there is any weapons program contemplated by Iran.
Rice persists, however: "More importantly, no one even wants Iran to have the technology on its territory that could lead to" weapons building." she said.
When will the international body stand up for Iran against the warmongering Bush regime's obvious attempt to punish them beyond any evidence and for threatening the sovereign nation with military attacks without any proof of any nuclear weapons plans, potential, or activity?
It's clear that the next meeting's agenda of incentives to persuade Iran not to enrich their own uranium is far short of what the Bush regime wants. What's important now is for the international community to reject the U.S. imperialism and establish some order to their diplomatic process so that the U.S. is not leading them into a soft war against Iran which would almost certainly be exploited by Bush, as in Iraq, to further their militarism with impunity.
The U.N. needs to step up and assert their independence from this war-loving American cabal and form their own coalition of the unwilling, now, before they are co-opted into Bush's scheme to dominate all these lesser defended nations in the region for his own lust for greed and conquest.
In the meantime, Rice and her cohorts in the administration have demonstrated to the world that they have no interest in dialog or diplomacy, unless it serves their narrow interests to dominate, intimidate, and conquer. We shouldn't let them get away with stifling Iran's voice, however, at least their peaceful expressions should be amplified. That's what Rice and others in the Bush regime are afraid of. Iran will never be presented to the American people by the administration as reasonable and non-threatening, no matter how many times they assert their peaceful intentions.
But I'll offer one passage from the Iranian president's letter which I feel should serve to represent his intentions, beyond his defensive rhetoric in response to Bush's threats. Here's an excerpt:
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make "War and Terror" his slogan, and finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community -- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern . . . ?