From the time when President Bush branded Iran as one of "the axis of evil" to this years' Nowruz when his successor Barack Obama acknowledged its "great and celebrated culture" in a bid to overcome "old divisions" and pursue "constructive ties", the US has passed through an experience that shook it out of the megalomaniac overconfidence to keep the world in tow, with brutal force if needed, to a rude awakening of the limits of power. Thanks to the neo-imperialistic and suicidal policies it recklessly followed, with 9/11 serving as justification for taking on any country it perceived hostile to its interests, the US put the status of the sole superpower that the demise of the Soviet Union had conferred on it at stake. Now militarily helpless against an unabated militant threat and economically squeezed on account of the massive expenditure it incurred on the War on Terror, it finds rival powers rapidly gaining influence around the world and ruefully watches its dominant position seriously dented. Its reputation as a champion of human rights and justice stands largely eclipsed the world over; and the Muslim world literally seethes with the hatred of it. Thus as a consequence, the Bush doctrine of preemptiveness and unilateralism lies automatically and unceremoniously buried, leaving the American pride badly hurt in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US strategists with, perhaps, the only option of wooing and engaging with soft power those states they regard as hostile or unfriendly. And Iran vies with a country or two for the top of the list under this category. But Iranians are not a nation that would so easily forgive and forget. And considering the wrongs it has suffered at the hands of the US for over half a century - Iranians' grouse pre-dates the Mossadegh era, while Obama only talks of the past three decades - one would be hard put to accuse them of obstinacy. In actual fact, there is neither any evidence of relief in Tehran's grievances nor any US move is in sight to address them. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has, therefore, accosted President Obama with some direct questions about his pledge of change in the conduct of foreign policy, particularly towards Iran: "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusation against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime?" And he affixed these questions to two quite objective observations, "Even the language remains unchanged...America is hated around the world for its arrogance." And we might ask Mr Obama yet another question: "Have the Americans given up attempts at regime change at Tehran for which US Congress makes yearly financial allocations?" These questions should render the US leader speechless and he could very well visualise the fate of his overtures. But he should have expected the Iranians to look askance at them since he had, only a week back, given approval to the extension of the existing sanctions against Iran. They could not have possibly taken his remark: "We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," on its face value and unless the US makes some concrete positive move the required thaw in relations is hardly likely to occur. With an honest fundamental shift in American policy, the old sores that continue to rankle could also heal with time. The list of Tehran's grievances is not short and also includes the American support for President Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranian leaders could not be blamed for regarding this support as an attempt at striking at the root of revolution because it was just trying to find its feet (about a year old); they are not likely to forget it easily as they maintain that the US continues to instigate elements hostile to it to topple the regime. They also accuse the US of interfering in internal affairs and inciting communal tension in the country. The charge of sponsoring terrorism against Iran flows from the US policy of unqualified backing to Israel that has unquestionably established itself as a terrorist state. Instead of correcting its own perspective of the Middle East scene, Washington does not want Tehran to have anything to do with Hezbollah and Hamas. The most ticklish issue that President Bush raised to the level of a nail-biting tension at one time is Tehran's uncompromising insistence on enriching uranium. Iran emphatically maintains that the enrichment is low grade and entirely for peaceful purposes, to produce electricity, a right granted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US and its Western allies suspect that this could be a ploy to make atomic bomb at a later stage but they do not have any supporting evidence. To avoid confrontation, both sides have to show statesmanship. The US needs to review its policy in the Middle East and Iran has to satisfy impartial international monitors that it has no plans to go nuclear. E-mail: mqkay@yahoo.co.uk