Thirty years ago today, the American Embassy in Tehran was seized. The 444 days that began on November 4, 1979 deeply affected the lives of courageous Americans who were unjustly held hostage, and we owe these Americans and their families our gratitude for their extraordinary service and sacrifice.

This event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation. I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.

Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for. The American people have great respect for the people of Iran and their rich history. The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights.  It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity, and justice for its people.

Notice the subtle reference to the Iranian uprising. (“The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights.”) That’s probably in there to acknowledge that the opposition intends to subvert today’s anniversary of the embassy siege, as is happening right now.

Obama gave his message shortly after a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, described in this Washington Post story. Khamanei didn’t formally reject diplomatic outreach with the United States, despite the Post’s headline. (See, for instance, this New York Times description.) But he called talks “naive and perverted” as long as the U.S. harbors unspecified hostile intentions toward Iran, presumably meaning sanctions packages that are moving through the Hill.

It’s tempting to view the speech as standard-issue demagogy on a charged anniversary. But the Iranians have yet to send a clear signal that they actually welcome diplomacy with the United States, no matter how much outreach Obama presents.

An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

The letter apparently had nothing to do with the election itself. Over the past several months, stories have come out about how the Obama administration was trying to find ways to negotiate directly with Khamanei, who holds the real power over Iranian foreign policy, and circumvent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently they found a way, as Khamanei obliquely referenced in his Friday sermon: “They write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties, and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe?”

Those “remarks” were Obama’s comments about the regime’s obligations to respect human rights.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

And I’m very concerned based on some of the tenor — and tone of the statements that have been made — that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and — and is not.

That continues the rhetorical move toward clarifying that only one side is responsible for the violence, but Obama frames it in a fairly nonconfrontational way here.

The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph has video (after the jump).

The New York Times reports the following reaction from an anonymous protester:

“The question now is: will Mr. Moussavi rise up as a true opposition leader, or will he demonstrate his allegiance to the system and go away? The question for the protesters is will they remain as opposition or will we stay home, too?”

According to @PersianKiwi, the government has refused to grant a permit for a scheduled “Sea of Green” protest in Tehran tomorrow that Moussavi has called for. People are viewing this as a line in the sand. If the protest moves forward, it may get bloody. Or it may force the regime to back down.

Naturally, Ganji hailed the opposition movement, but was cautious about claiming that Iran was in a revolutionary situation, as some have contended. “So far, the people have stood their ground really well. I’m hopeful that with everyone’s support, they can actually keep this movement going forward,” Ganji said.

“It’s very difficult to predict where this is going to lead to right now. The main point is that the government is very powerful. The regime is very organized with its intelligence forces, and the entire military apparatus, including the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij are included in this. These guys are really well trained.

“[Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamanei is a massive dictator, whose first and foremost interest is to maintain power and stay in power. The other point is that the Iranian people 30 years ago had a major revolution, the 1979 revolution, and following that, were involved in an eight-year war [with Iraq] and after that was the reformist movement. In the past 10 years, we’ve had varying experiences. So in one way, they’re not really looking for a revolution because it’s very expensive and very costly at the end. But altogether, the people are extremely unhappy with the regime, and they have a lot of hate for the regime.

“So the current situation is dangerous. One outcome is the regime might use extreme violence, with all the powers at its means to suppress the movement. The other option is that the regime will not accept the people’s request and the people will continue demonstrating. And the people’s requests and their aspirations will get larger and larger, which will lead to a revolution, whose outcome is really unknown.

“But there is another solution, a middle ground where Khamanei will accept the people’s requests. Khamanei will not like to accept the people’s requests, and will feel that if he will give ground, that will leave to more requests from people, and having to give more ground.”

What does Ganji think of President Obama’s statements about Iran? “From my perspective, Obama has so far said he won’t meddle in Iran’s internal situation, and that’s a good, good approach,” Ganji said, but he added, “He cannot stay silent on human rights issues.” Clearly, Ganji thinks the Obama administration isn’t striking the right balance between non-intervention and humanitarian concerns. But that’s not to say that more active American support is welcome:

“Bush’s policies toward Iran and the Middle East were completely wrong. The result of Bush’s policy, it led to Iran gaining strength. Mr. Obama is trying to change the policy. If we can separate two points, we can actually drive to a good policy. First, Iran’s path to democracy and the people’s movement to democracy is for the people of Iran. No foreign country, either America or any other, should get involved in that process.

“Secondly, human rights is an international condition. When a country denies human rights for its own people, the entire world should punish that government. So the people of Iran will not want anyone to get involved in that. But what they expect from the world is to protest an Iranian regime from a human-rights perspective. This is a policy which I stand by.

“The Iranian people are saying the Ahmadinejad government is a coup d’etat government. They’re asking that no government accept the legitimacy of his government. This is what most people want, for no government to work with the Ahmadinejad government.”

Should the United States continue diplomatic outreach toward Iran, as the Obama administration is seeking?

“Not with the government of Ahmadinejad, a government that people consider a coup d’etat government.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.