Shouldn't Bush respond to Ahmadinejad?

One thing everyone can agree about the President of Iran's letter to the President of the United States is that it is long, very long.

1. The letter starts by of course accusing Bush of hypocrisy and questioning his faith, "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan..."
2. The letter then goes on and on about the evils and the mistakes of the Great Satan and about the war on Iraq and about the fact that Iran and other countries have rights, which include the one to have nuclear energy.
3. If the objective  of the letter was to show that Iran is willing to dialogue and that it is the United States, which is unwilling to do so, then I believe that it was accomplished. Because this letter makes it more difficult for the United States to argue that it is for diplomacy when it refuses to have one on one discussions with Iran.
4. I believe that Bush should respond to Ahmadinejad just to show that he means what he says when he talks about the fact that diplomacy is the first option to resolve the Iranian crisis. Responding doesn't mean surrendering. It doesn't even have to mean changing the objective of the West, which is to make sure that Iran doesn't acquire nukes, however responding means engaging Ahmadinejad. 
5. This episode reminds me the one when President George H. Bush agreed to talk to the Iraqi people through Iraqi state television before the start of the first Gulf War. He knew hat his message would not get through the Iraqi people because Saddam loyalists would mock him but he didn't anyway to show that openness is one of the values for which the US stands for.
6. The truth is unfortunately is that the US does not have many choices and that it is going to have to talk to Iran and to do in a manner that is both constructive and realistic. Recent history shows that sanctions don't work especially when they are applied against a regime, which is undemocratic. Soon or later, the US is going to have to the Iran, the Bush administration may not want it to happen soon, but it would be better for the US and for the World if it happened sooner than later.

Comments

[Darrell]

If we (the US) open a dialogue with Iran, Direct talks between the US and Iran, we stand a very good chance of undermining talks between Iran and the EU, and the UNSC. The US should engage in a dialogue with Iran, but through the established channels that already exist. We must maintain a united front in talking with Iran, show them our united resolve in not allowing them to attain the most horrific weapons on the planet. If the US and Iran held direct 1 on 1 talks, it very well could jeopardize the resolve needed to convince Iran to stop its pursuit of those weapons.