Hot off the presses. I’ve only glanced at it but it looks like the usual melange of Jew-baiting, Aquarian peace and love, and left-wing Bush-hate bullet points. Back with quotes in a few. In the meantime, here’s an image to meditate on while you read.

iran-gays.jpg

Update: MSNBC.com has a poll up asking if its readers are interested in Ahmadinejad has to say and whether it’s time for dialogue. As of this writing, 58% say yes.

Update: Here you go. Jew-baiting:

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine…

What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.

Even Jimmy Carter rejects the right of return. Aquarian peace and love:

I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.

And the Bush-hate:

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people…

The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception…

[American soldiers’] mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores…

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons…

You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of “the war on terror,” civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning…

Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.

So he covered all his bases. But what’s this?

I’d also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US:…

If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration’s policies.

Long story short, he wants us out of Iraq and on the Palestinians’ side. Those two demands or some variation of them are probably his preconditions for talks, too, so there’s what you have to work with if the Baker Commission approach prevails. Good luck.

One last thing. What’s up with this?

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.

It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.

He uses those clusters of abstract nouns constantly, not only in this letter but in other things he’s written. Does anyone know if that’s a convention of Farsi style? Or is this some sort of rhetorical strategy the point of which I’m missing?