David Ignatius, "Iran gets the message from Washington": Which Message?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Iran gets the message from Washington" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-gets-the-message-from-washington/2012/01/20/gIQAlXjoEQ_print.html), David Ignatius would have us believe that Tehran has "blinked" and is retreating from its belicose threats to close the Strait of Hormuz:

"The Iran nuclear crisis is far from over, but Tehran appears to have made a subtle blink — backing away from its threat a few weeks ago to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to escalating U.S. sanctions.

The softening of Iran’s position followed a warning by a U.S. emissary this month that any effort to close the strait would trigger a potentially devastating U.S. response. Clearly, Tehran got the message — with a top Iranian official publicly disavowing on Thursday the earlier saber-rattling.

'Iran has never in its history tried to prevent, to put any obstacles in the way of this important maritime route,' Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi insisted in a television interview during a visit to Turkey."

Ignatius fails to mention that the Iranian ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaii, also said on Thurday the exact opposite (see: http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/94722-all-options-on-the-table-if-iran-threatened-tehran-un-envoy):

"'There is no decision to block and close the Strait of Hormuz unless Iran is threatened seriously and somebody wants to tighten the noose,' Ambassador Mohammad Khazaii said on the U.S. television network PBS’ Charlie Rose show on January 19, AFP reported.

'Iran would not try to block the Strait of Hormuz unless a foreign power seeks to 'tighten the noose,' he stated.

'All the options are or would be on the table.'

'We believe that the Strait of Hormuz should be the strait of peace and stability,' the Iranian ambassador said 'But if foreign powers want to create trouble in the Persian Gulf, of course it would be the right of Iran as well as the rest of the countries in the region to try to defend themselves.'"

David Ignatius and the Obama administration still don't understand how the game is played in the Middle East. Ignatius would like to believe that Iran is buckling, when in fact it is seeking to undermine Western resolve by issuing contradictory statements and would be delighted to engage in another round of meaningless negotiations sought by the EU's imbecilic foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. As reported by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/20/world/meast/iran-eu-talks/index.html), Ashton, in an October letter to Tehran, again tried to obtain assurances regarding Tehran's pacific intent and to resume talks:

"Ashton wrote that the West wants to 'engage in a confidence-building exercise' that would lead to a 'constructive dialogue' and a 'step by step approach' in which Iran would assure the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful."

Ashton, a grandmaster of vacuous platitudes, doesn't understand that Tehran, which thinks it can continue to stall for time to build its atomic weapons, should be sending the letters.

A replay of Munich 1938? No two situations are identical, but the West is certainly wearing its naivete on its sleeve.