An overture by Barack Obama to extend a hand of peace to Iran if the Islamic Republic "unclenches its fist" met with an unexpectedly tetchy response from the US president's mercurial Iranian counterpart yesterday.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed the possibility of change in US foreign policy. But he insisted the United States first must stop supporting Israel, withdraw US troops from across the world and apologise for "crimes" against Iran dating six decades. Such measures - representing a largely unrealistic wish list - were needed if the United States is to demonstrate that the Obama administration's much trumpeted commitment to change was genuine and not merely tactical.
"We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track," Mr Ahmadinejad told a large rally in western Iran that was broadcast live on state television. Despite his robust language, Mr Ahmadinejad is intrigued by Mr Obama's declared readiness to improve relations: the Iranian president sent him an unprecedented letter of congratulations after his election victory in November.
Mr Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election is June and knows that improved relations with the "global arrogance" - the United States - is a certain vote-winner with his country's youthful electorate. At the same time, Iran next week celebrates the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that ousted the US-backed shah. As the populist Iranian president knows, now is not the time to flatter Uncle Sam.
Mr Ahmadinejad's outburst nevertheless reflected Iranian concerns that the Obama administration may prove different in style but not in substance to its predecessor. Washington, in turn, has yet to be convinced that Tehran is genuinely prepared to respond to any new overture to end three decades of enmity that could stabilise the whole region. US analysts said the Obama administration was offering Tehran a "different approach which Mr Ahmadinejad was "wholly unprepared to deal with".
Gary Sick of Columbia University in New York, one of the United States' pre-eminent Iran experts, said Mr Obama had shown a "tremendous amount of courage" in reaching out to Iran. Washington was now waiting to see if that courage would be matched by Tehran, Prof Sick said in an interview. Many Iranians consider Hillary Clinton, the new US secretary of state, a hawk and there are concerns that Mr Obama's yet-to-be-named envoy to Iran will be Dennis Ross, an old Middle East hand who is viewed in Tehran as a staunch "Israel-firster".
Some US analysts say Mr Ross could be useful because his appointment would allay Israeli fears it could lose out in any rapprochement between Tehran and Washington. Iranian officials detected an unsettling ambiguity in comments this week by Susan Rice, the new US ambassador to the United Nations. She pledged "direct" support to Tehran if it halts its nuclear programme, but appeared to suggest Iran must suspend uranium enrichment before talks could begin. That was a precondition set by the Bush administration that Tehran steadfastly rejected.
Kian Mokhtari, a regular commentator in Kayhan, a hardline daily newspaper, scoffed yesterday: "During his presidential election campaign, Obama spoke of talks without preconditions ? so is Ambassador Rice a loose cannon or have the same Zionist mules in the White House been hard at work again to try to prevent a lasting peace in the Middle East region?" Mrs Clinton implied this week that it was up to Tehran to take the first step if it wanted to enjoy a beneficial new relationship with Mr Obama's administration. Mr Ahmadinejad saw it differently: the United States first needs to prove its good faith.
"Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran," he said. "You were standing against the Iranian people in the past 60 years." That timeline was a clear reference to the CIA's role in a British-inspired coup that toppled the democratically elected and popular Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953, because he had nationalised his country's oil industry.
Mr Ahmadinejad conveniently overlooked an uncomfortable fact: nine years ago Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state under Bill Clinton, clearly apologised for her country's role in that coup. Washington at the time was attempting to reach out to Iran, which then had a very popular and moderate president, Mohammad Khatami, whose attempts to reciprocate were thwarted by Tehran's old guard. Most of the US public has no knowledge of the coup against Mr Mossadegh, an event seared into the Iranian psyche in the same way that the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran has scarred US perceptions of the Islamic republic.
Mr Ahmadinejad had other demands. "If you talk about change, it must put an end to the US military presence in the world - withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders," he said. Advocates of change also must stop "supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals". The Iranian president knows his demand for Washington to cut support for Israel is fanciful. More realistic is Mr Obama's expectation that the United States will treat Iran as a vital regional player that can help stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan.
mtheodoulou@thenational.ae
