Secret communication between Obama and Iran's supreme leader

Yesterday I posted a story Iranian news sources claim Obama recognizes Iran's nuclear rights, which tends to indicate that there may be signs that Washington is trying to de-escalate the conflict.

If this is so, it is not difficult to see why.

America is on the retreat on several fronts.  Several key countries have refused to play ball when it comes to the oil embargo; several countries have announced a move away from the dollar.  It is costing NATO 6 times more to supply troops in Afghansitan than before Pakistan cut off the supply lines and it is becoming clear to the world that the world needs Iranian oil - despite statements to the contrary Saudi Arabia is unable to make up the shortfall.

In general it is hard to distinguish truth from lie, reality from propaganda and rhetoric.

Welcome to the era of Peak Oil.

The following article is from a mainstream source - and perhaps an indication that yesterday’s story might not just be misinformation from Fars and Pravda.

Will Iran answer O?

New York Post,

21 January, 2012

Last week, Tehran circles tipped a “top secret message” from President Obama to Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. This week, almost everyone seemed to know (or pretend to know) something about the mystery letter. In an editorial Thursday, the daily Kayhan, published by Khamenei’s office, claimed Obama had adopted “a supplicatory tone, seeking to ingratiate himself in the eyes of the supreme guide.”

But let’s start with what everyone agrees about the letter:

* This is the third time that Obama has written to Iranian leaders. The first two letters were addressed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who didn’t bother to reply but later sent two letters of his own to Obama, getting no response.

* By writing to Khamenei, Obama acknowledged that his administration no longer regards Ahmadinejad as the key player in Tehran.

* By writing to Khamenei, Obama returns to a tradition started by President Jimmy Carter, who sent handwritten letters to the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini didn’t bother to reply, either.

* Obama’s letter was delivered by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a sign that Washington regards Baghdad as a possible mediator with Tehran.

* In America, news of the letter came under headlines about Obama warning Tehran that closing the Strait of Hormuz was a “red line.” In Tehran, the headline was different: “Obama promises to take no hostile action against the Islamic Republic!”

On the surface, at least, Tehran sees the letter as a sign of weakness. “The letter begins with lots of bluster,” says Hussein Ebrahimi, vice-chairman of the Committee on National Security at the Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament. “Later, however, the American adopts a conciliatory tone and invites the Islamic Republic to negotiation. Obama pledges not to take hostile action against us.”

Ebrahimi said other factors might have persuaded Obama to write the letter — Iran’s “rising power in the region,” or “electoral calculations” (“He does not want Iran to turn him into another Jimmy Carter”).

Hussein Naqavai, another Majlis member, claims Obama “acted out of fear.” “Obama has proposed a red telephone between Tehran and Washington,” he says. “This is an admission that Iran should be consulted on major international issues.”

Iranian leaders often claim that their Islamic Republic is the successor to the USSR as challenger to American “world domination.” Mohsen Rezai, a former Revolutionary Guard commander, sees Obama’s letter as “a clever maneuver to present the United States as guarantor of security in international waters.”

“However,” Rezai says, “that role is now assumed by Iran.”

Rhetoric aside, the letter may have opened a window of opportunity to reduce the current tension. The fact that, this time, no one in Tehran says that the letter has been consigned to the trash can is remarkable in itself.

Another novelty is that everyone more than hints at the possibility of an answer. “We shall study the matter carefully,” says Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. “If we deem that an answer is needed, the necessary steps will be taken.”

Also interesting is the lack of an outright rejection of Obama’s reported suggestion of “talks on all issues, with full respect for mutual interests.” This is important because, under a notorious law passed by the Majlis in the 1980s, any talk with the US is forbidden.

More important, perhaps, leaks about the letter produce what looks like an agenda for possible direct talks between the foes.

To start with, it appears that Obama has made no mention of Iran’s controversial uranium-enrichment program. Demands that the program be scrapped are at the center of four US-backed resolutions passed by the UN Security Council.

Iran, however, wants the US and its allies to accept the program as a fait accompli. “We should move beyond that old issue,” said Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi this week.

By putting the focus on the Strait of Hormuz, Obama makes it easy for Iran to appear to be making concessions. Iran doesn’t want the strait closed because that would mean an end to its own oil exports; no other country in the world would lose more. By solemnly undertaking not to close the strait, Iran would give Obama a meaningless concession, but something that might look good for the president in his re-election campaign.

In exchange, Iranian leaders openly demand that Obama drop the threat of an embargo on Iran’s oil exports. “If Obama has a red line, so do we,” says Majlis member Esmail Kothari. “Our red line is an oil embargo.”

Obama may have blundered his way into persuading the Iranians to rise to the bait for the first time in a long while. Whether they bite or not is a different matter.