No one actually believed that the letter sent last week by Ahmadinejad was targeting Bush. And the letter aimed at fooling no one because its content was clearly targeting the public opinion, particularly the Western one. This 18-pages enumeration of grieves Iran holds toward the US had no concrete proposition to get out of the situation. This makes the purpose of the letter obvious: wining some points with the public opinion. By the way the White House was not blind and clearly perceived the risk as they later declared that Teheran’s communication strategy was to victimize Iran and take the blame on Washington.

This said, who is the audience of the letter? I doubt Ahmadinejad has ever heard of McLuhan, but this guy produced a few decades ago one of the founding theories of communication: the medium is the message. The letter is a perfect example of this assertion. The letter was widely spread on the Internet, which defines its audience: the Western citizens.

However a strong paradox raises and confuses Teheran’s Strategy. When Ahmadinejad, at the beginning of 2005, express his deep will of seeing Israel wiped out of the map, he logically alienated himself a huge majority of the Western World. What would now be the point in trying to convince this very same audience that his case is – partially – justified? Feel free to choose your strategy when you take a girl out for a date, but if you act like a psycho for the first dish, if you’re worst during the second dish, I bet there won’t be a lot of girls staying for the dessert. And don’t expect anyone to come to your place for the supper.

I personally don’t buy the argument that Ahmadinejad is insane, or even that he changes his strategy every so often. I think there is a strong and well-thought ongoing strategy, conceived by Ahmadinejad or by whatever people who manipulate him.

There is no doubt for most of experts and international observers that Iran shares with North Korea the same goal: achieving a regulation of their international relationships and bargaining economical advantages, both sine qua none conditions for an internal stability. The possession of the Atomic Bomb is more a mean than an end in itself. Whereas Pyong Yang has been negotiating for some years now on a discreet level with Beijing and Washington, Teheran has chosen a more media-exposed strategy. With the risk of offending the White House’s pride. But with the chances of getting a strong mean of pressure on the West.

Ahmadinejad started his communication offensive in January 2005. It’s noticeable that almost no one in the West had reacted at the election of Ahmadinejad, nor at his speech in the United Nations. But his sturdy statement against Israel suddenly made all the lights of the Medias focusing on him. From then Ahmadinejad remained at the top of the Agenda. All his speeches were carefully analyzed and – more important – spread through the Western audience. Another effect of this speech was to set a tremendous pressure on every following Teheran’s threat. Would people have care as much of Teheran’s nuclear pretensions without Ahmadinejad earliest declaration on Israel?

Then Teheran pretends offering agreements solution to Washington – who refuses it. Meanwhile they published a highly relayed letter enumerating complaints against the USA and expressed in a way most of western public opinion would agree on.

Now step back and think about it. A new battlefield has been rising for the past years: the Public Opinion. But never a battle has been so fierce than today. On our left, red shirt, 90 kg, Georges Walker Bush, plans to strike Iran from within, funding opposition and hoping for a popular revolution. Of course the USA doesn’t have the resources for a third battlefield, nor can they afford another lack of international legitimacy. On our right, blue short, 65 kg, Mohamed Ahmadinejad, also tries as hard as he can to manipulate the public opinion. He knows he can isolate the US and rely in the Western Opinion to ask theirs governments for an inflexion of their hard-line policy. Is it working? Have you noticed the number of editorials published in the last weeks asking for a dialogue between the US and Iran? Even Annan called for a change of policy in Washington. Had anyone, including the UN, ever asked for such a dialogue over the 25 past years? And Teheran knows the people of the West can mobilize itself concerning international matters, think of the protest throughout Europe against the war in Irak.

See the consistence in Ahmadinejad’s policy? First, scare people. Let them know they would better listen to you, so you get the attention of the media. Scare them enough, and you’ll be sure they will pay a lot of attention to what comes next, whatever it is that comes next. Then act as if you are the one who is offended and attacked, and prepare the public opinion to ask for a softening of the policy. This will work all the more better if your opponent has no intention to soften his policy at first. Just give him the time to realize he has no other choice.

Who said Teheran’s policy was dumb? They just master the mass media communication theories as few governments do.