How to write back to Mahmoud?

In Slate, Fred Kaplan has a pretty good idea for how to respond to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter: President Bush should publicly respond to the letter?at length and in detail. Daffy as the letter is, it does contain one clue that Ahmadinejad might really be seeking a dialogue. More to the point, many people and governments ...

By Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

May 12, 2006, 2:32 PM

In Slate, Fred Kaplan has a pretty good idea for how to respond to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter: President Bush should publicly respond to the letter?at length and in detail. Daffy as the letter is, it does contain one clue that Ahmadinejad might really be seeking a dialogue. More to the point, many people and governments in the world, especially (but by no means exclusively) in the Muslim world, are taking the letter seriously and believe that it deserves a reply. In short, it provides a perfect opportunity for Bush to do what he should have been doing for the last few years?to lay out what America stands for, what we have in common with Muslim nations, and how our differences can be tolerated or settled without conflict. If such a reply leads nowhere?if it turns out that Ahmadinejad's letter is as empty as it seems on the surface?no harm will have been done. Bush can continue to step up pressure on Iran's nuclear activities. In fact, civil correspondence with the Iranian president could be touted as a sign of Bush's good intentions and his desire for diplomacy. Kaplan is correct about Ahmadinejad's letter being a PR boost in the Muslim world -- which is truly depressing, for the letter is a rambling, inchoate, milleniarian text. Readers are invited to outline what should be contained in the best possible response letter. The only downside to responding would seem to be that a response somehow confers legitimacy upon Ahmadinejad -- which Bush is anathema to do. A final note: Kaplan also goes onto confirm that I'm not crazy in being ticked off at the administration for whiffing on an opportunity to negotiate a grand bargain with Iran back in 2003. Kaplan links to the obvious source for the original FT story on this -- former NSC senior director Flynt Everett. Check out his January 2006 New York Times op-ed here and his Q&A with cfr.org interviewer extraordinaire Bernard Gwertzman here. UPDATE: Historian par excellance Mary Sarotte recounts the history of letters as a tool of diplomacy in the Washington Post. Her conclusions are consistent with Kaplan's: If there is a lesson from this checkered history of correspondence in crisis, it is this: Content doesn't count. The historical record shows a clear mismatch between what was written in a letter and its consequences. Zimmermann meant to threaten the United States in secret; instead, his leaked telegram shored up its public resolve. Bismarck used a boring missive to mount a war; Kennedy ignored public demands of the Soviets to maintain peace. Now, Ahmadinejad's letter is a highly suspect olive branch and an obvious public relations ploy. But it represents a rare opportunity in this particular contest of wills. Surely, there is a foreign policy official in Washington today who can figure out something better to do with Ahmadinejad's letter than ignore it.

In Slate, Fred Kaplan has a pretty good idea for how to respond to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter:

President Bush should publicly respond to the letter?at length and in detail. Daffy as the letter is, it does contain one clue that Ahmadinejad might really be seeking a dialogue. More to the point, many people and governments in the world, especially (but by no means exclusively) in the Muslim world, are taking the letter seriously and believe that it deserves a reply. In short, it provides a perfect opportunity for Bush to do what he should have been doing for the last few years?to lay out what America stands for, what we have in common with Muslim nations, and how our differences can be tolerated or settled without conflict. If such a reply leads nowhere?if it turns out that Ahmadinejad’s letter is as empty as it seems on the surface?no harm will have been done. Bush can continue to step up pressure on Iran’s nuclear activities. In fact, civil correspondence with the Iranian president could be touted as a sign of Bush’s good intentions and his desire for diplomacy.

Kaplan is correct about Ahmadinejad’s letter being a PR boost in the Muslim world — which is truly depressing, for the letter is a rambling, inchoate, milleniarian text. Readers are invited to outline what should be contained in the best possible response letter. The only downside to responding would seem to be that a response somehow confers legitimacy upon Ahmadinejad — which Bush is anathema to do. A final note: Kaplan also goes onto confirm that I’m not crazy in being ticked off at the administration for whiffing on an opportunity to negotiate a grand bargain with Iran back in 2003. Kaplan links to the obvious source for the original FT story on this — former NSC senior director Flynt Everett. Check out his January 2006 New York Times op-ed here and his Q&A with cfr.org interviewer extraordinaire Bernard Gwertzman here. UPDATE: Historian par excellance Mary Sarotte recounts the history of letters as a tool of diplomacy in the Washington Post. Her conclusions are consistent with Kaplan’s:

If there is a lesson from this checkered history of correspondence in crisis, it is this: Content doesn’t count. The historical record shows a clear mismatch between what was written in a letter and its consequences. Zimmermann meant to threaten the United States in secret; instead, his leaked telegram shored up its public resolve. Bismarck used a boring missive to mount a war; Kennedy ignored public demands of the Soviets to maintain peace. Now, Ahmadinejad’s letter is a highly suspect olive branch and an obvious public relations ploy. But it represents a rare opportunity in this particular contest of wills. Surely, there is a foreign policy official in Washington today who can figure out something better to do with Ahmadinejad’s letter than ignore it.

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

Tag: U.S. Foreign Policy