Ahmadinejad's Latest Declaration of Peace and Tolerance

[That's sarcasm for you sarcasm-challenged folks out there.]

Ahmadinejad is calling for the destruction of Israel - again. He seems to roll out a new version of the same story every few weeks. Even still some, like Juan Cole, don't quite want to believe what Ahmadinejad says. To Cole, it's just rhetoric.

Well, it now appears that Iran wasn't sending President Bush a love note earlier this week. It was a call to submit to Islam or face the consequences. Just as Robert Spencer had said when the contents were first revealed.

While Ahmadinejad was over in Indonesia signing memorandums of understanding on a variety of economic and social issues, and also reframing the issues raised in his letter from earlier in the week:

"We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

The president said that the letter actually contained a clear message of invitation to human beliefs, adding that its response will determine the future.

Concerning Iran's readiness to hold talks with the US, he said that Iran is in favor of dialogues, but it depends on the conditions.

The dialogue Ahmadinejad is seeking is one of capitulation and submission - definitely not what most Americans have in mind.

UPDATE:
Jeff Goldstein contemplates the Ahmadinejad letter and concludes that it is not the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind, but a declaration of war. He muses:

Which is why I find it baffling that some have gone so far as to suggest that Iran poses no threat to the US whatsoever—unless, that is, the US tries to stop Iran from finishing its nuclear weapons program. Under this description, though, the international community’s fear of a nuclear armed Iran can only be assuaged by allowing Iran to become nuclear armed. Because any attempt to stop them makes them more dangerous than they otherwise would be should they, er, become nuclear armed. Which is what the international community believes will make them dangerous to begin with.

It truly does boggle the mind why anyone would let Iran go nuclear other than the fact that no one appears willing or capable to do the dirty work now.

Dinocrat feels vindicated.

I find it disturbing that the so-called experts in the media and government keep getting this wrong. Has the New York Times headlined the fact that Iran has declared war on the US because it is their religious belief that we either submit to Islam or suffer the consequences? The short answer is no.

And that doesn't get the Bush Administration off the hook either. While they've been playing the game of diplomacy and stating that Islam means peace or that Islam is a peaceful religion corrupted by a few militants, we've got Islamic countries that are pushing jihad - and not solely through the use of proxy terrorist groups.

neo-neocon notes that tyrants mean what they say. We have to take them at their word, especially when they've been at the same message for 25+ years.

American Thinker posits that this statement needs a suitable response - a political theater response:

This is guerilla theater – Iran’s letter was released to the media before the White House received it. Maybe Taheri is right, and President Bush should consider a little political theater in response. Tony Snow, where are you?

Rick Moran notes that it's well past time to take off the pre 9/11 tin foil hats. He also notes the curious appearance of a second letter from Iran, which addresses some of the US concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions - and raises serious questions about the inner workings of the mullahcracy.

Sugiero thinks that anyone who wants to take Ahmadinejad up on his offer needs serious help.

Ace has a humerous response.