According to the Bush administration, diplomacy, not force, is their first choice to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program. Who could seriously doubt this claim's sincerity, given the administration's principled pursuit of peace, especially the manner in which it exhausted all diplomatic options before invading Afghanistan and Iraq (and then only after taking every possible safeguard to protect civilians, baby ducks, even oil pipelines)? What greater demonstration of their dedication to peace could one expect than words?

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's strategy in pursuit of peace seems counter-productive. Indeed, it may unwittingly provoke the crisis it seeks to avert. For example, the Iranians may be put off by American efforts to impose sanctions through the United Nations; they may be perplexed that, despite the stakes, the American government is unwilling to engage in direct, bilateral dialogue; and they may completely misunderstand the American government's stated willingness to consider the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons against them. It is probably innate to the Persian, if not Muslim, character, to fail to appreciate that there is a reasonable context even for the contemplation of the most unthinkable atrocities--especially if the potential victims of such atrocities are people who don't matter, like them.

Imagine my delight, then, when a few weeks ago, from an unlikely source, came a ray of hope: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Najad wrote to President Bush, thus re-opening a line of communication closed since 1979. Mysteriously, the opportunity for peace that this letter represents seems unappreciated. Even the normally perspicacious Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, told the Associated Press that in the first direct communication between these two governments in 27 years, she could not "find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue." If her character, intent and dedication to peace are above reproach, her imagination apparently is not.

The full text of the letter is hard to find in the mainstream American media (probably due to some oversight), but trenchant analysis of it can be found there. For example, Daniel Schorr of National Public Radio opined that the letter was "crazy." It gladdens my heart to know that Mr. Schorr, at least, is not intimidated by a world leader's stature or seduced by facile jingoism. (I look forward to similarly succinct, informative and critical appraisals of other leaders' actions, including those of people who are not Iranian, Muslim, dark-skinned or opposed to American policy.) In this case, however, I consider Mr. Schorr's incisive commentary misguided. When I read the letter myself (for an English version, go to www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm), I think I understand his confusion. The letter proceeds by posing a number of questions, each of which presupposes a government whose policy is ludicrously inconsistent. President Ahmadi-Najad describes a government that claims to respect human rights and to oppose nuclear proliferation, but also one that attacks countries under false pretenses and sanctions the slaughter of civilians. He describes a government whose leaders repeatedly invoke religious ideals as their motivation, but also one that imprisons and tortures suspected enemies the world over. And he describes a government that proclaims the virtues of democracy but brutally opposes democratically-elected administrations while supporting coups and dictators. Who could this government be? If we rule out the existence of such a ruthless and hypocritical government, we might very well arrive at Mr. Schorr's conclusion that the letter is "crazy."

A further factor contributing to this misguided assessment may be the endearing, if shy, reluctance to understand the Iranian position in any sort of context. For example, when in comments to the Associated Press, Secretary Rice described the letter as tackling only history, philosophy and religion, and added that "it isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way," she seemed to imply that history, philosophy and religion have nothing to do with the current stalemate or its solution. How uncharacteristically naive! Although widely overlooked in American media, various events and circumstances doubtlessly color Iranian views. For example, as President Ahmadi-Najad points out, memory of American involvement in the 1953 coup that replaced the legal government of Iran with dictatorial rule still rankles people. Some intractable Iranians angrily remember American support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq's ferocious war with Iran. And particularly recalcitrant Iranians wonder why the region's only nuclear power can, with outspoken American approval, pitilessly pursue policies of extraordinary racism and violence against local Muslim populations, while Iran and other predominantly Muslim countries cannot be trusted to develop nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes. If context like this is overlooked, I fear that we may mistakenly conclude, like Mr. Schorr, that the Iranian position is unfathomable, even "crazy."

So let me finish by suggesting to President Bush, Secretary Rice and others that, in the interest of peace, President Ahmadi-Najad's letter be considered seriously. Some of his questions are not only reasonable but important. For example, after describing massive, hypocritical and violent inequity, he asks: "How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to?" These questions seem pertinent to me. And his claim that western-style democracy as a concept has "failed," rather than meriting quick condemnation, perhaps should instead inspire us to ask whether or in what ways he's right, and what we should do about it. Unlike President Ahmadi-Najad, I don't advocate a religious solution; but ignoring these questions altogether seems naive, racist, suicidal, and, paradoxically, self-serving.