President Obama’s much-praised message of friendship to Iran got a dusty public response from the Iranians, including some nice imagery:

The new US president sends us a Persian New Year greeting message but in the same accuses us again to support terrorism and to be after nuclear weapons," the supreme leader said in a televised speech …

"He offers us his hand with a velvet glove under which, however, might be a cast-iron hand," Khamenei added. "We will not accept any offer for negotiations which goes together with force … we will see and if you (President Obama) really change, then we will change as well…"

Looking at the matter from a technical diplomatic drafting point of view, I can’t help feeling that President Obama did not quite get the tone right, especially in this key passage:

I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

Any such address has to tiptoe delicately between sounding too soft for most Americans, and (as in this case) sounding patronising to the Iranians.

Why should any Iranian think that the ‘true greatness’ of their civilisation comes through ‘peaceful means’? Surely a proud military tradition and destroying their enemies are part of that civilisation too, just as they are for the USA? Better to say so straight up?

And the Spidermanic phrase about with real rights comes great responsibilities? Ugh.

It conveys the thought that Iran takes its place among the ‘community of nations’ as and when and only if the USA wants that to happen. Yet if one wanders down the corridors of the UN one might find an unhealthy majority of UN member state diplomats tending to side with the Iranians in their windy anti-Western rhetoric and nasty ambitions. Who is the more isolated in all this?

Not how I would have crafted it.

Does all this matter? Not much.

The Iranians know that the USA under any management will drive a tough bargain, and will not want to end up with more Carteresque fiascos.

The Democrat Administration will strive to be tough while avoiding a ghastly confrontation. Plus it wants to put some clear rhetorical water between itself and its caricature of the Bush approach which, as is seen from this good real-life example was more than adequate for sending some subtle yet firm messages both to the Iranian people and to the ruling elite.

One way or the other, the problem remains.

If Iran keeps edging towards acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, is anyone going to stop them? 

The other parts of the Obama message were weakly done waffle from the Chauncey Gardiner school of drafting, oddly reminiscent of the stirring but doomed President Dale speech to the Martians in Mars Attacks!

And we know what happened to that President in the ensuing misunderstandings with the excitable Martians.

Skewered. With a Martian flag.

But will Slim Whitman make crazed Iranian extremists brains explode and save America and the world?

Yes!