There was no chance for a public discussion and after the vacation season, because of the existence of the official reaction, the chance for a free discussion over this topic would be diminished.
On a separate note, was Barack Obama's message a policy shift? If yes, can the Iranian government respond appropriately to this policy shift? How can one evaluate the Supreme Leader's response to this message?
In my opinion, although from one perspective, Obama's message can be considered a policy shift toward Iran on the part of the U.S., from another perspective it does not signify change. Distinguishing these two perspectives is essential for understanding what has taken place as well as Iran's reaction.
If we put Bush's language against Iran next to this message, we can undoubtedly conclude that a serious change has taken place in the White House's view toward Iran. The calm, even conciliatory tone of the message, as well its direct address to the leadership of the Islamic Republic, was a new development on the part of the White House. This change in tone is significant even if not couple with any serious policy change - though in this case it can be considered as the introduction to a change in strategy.
Obama's message, however, can be viewed from a different perspective. There are several serious as well as peripheral issues between the Iranian and U.S. governments. The issues of Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah, nuclear technology, human rights, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Any of these issues could spark serious disagreements between the parties. Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is regarded by the U.S. as terrorism, and the nuclear issue is equated with weapons of mass destruction, and so on. But let us not forget that these disagreements, whether serious or peripheral, have roots in a more fundamental difference. Iran's refusal to accept the international order and the U.S. hegemony is at the root of these differences and their somewhat un-resolvable nature.
In other words, unlike Bush, Obama has changed the topic from discussing that general difference to discussing particular instances of difference. However, it is clear that Iran is not in a position to negotiate about particular differences, because such negotiation would require a shared starting point, which, from the U.S. point of view, is accepting the governing rules of the international order.
This is a point that the Iranian Supreme Leader reminded Obama of in his response, correctly referring to it as hiding an iron hand under a velvet glove. The Iranian government knows well that, if it wants to resolve these differences within the framework of the international order, it will be the loser, and if it refuses to accept that order, it will be considered a rogue state and somewhat legitimize actions against it. Therefore, the best solution is to run away from negotiations. Until either of these two parties retreats on the issue of the justness or unjustness of the international order, the thought of constructive dialogue is a naïve dream.
Mr. Khamenei's quick response is understandable within this framework. However, the Iranian government's problem is that, even if the reality behind Obama's remark is made of iron, the international and even domestic public opinion only saw the velvet glove. From their point of view, the ball is in Iran's court. Does Iran have the ability to remove the velvet glove and demonstrate to the world the iron essence of this "velvet hand"? I won't imagine that to be a simple task.
