TEHRAN, May 3 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contradicts U.S. President Barack Obama over Iran's ties with Latin America, the local Press TV reported on Sunday. In a response to Clinton's recent remarks regarding the U.S. concerns over Iran's growing ties with Latin American countries, Mottaki said that Clinton's remarks do not go with Barack Obama's foreign policy views. "Clinton's statements are in direct contradiction with those of the U.S. president," he was quoted as saying.

This is interesting not so much for what Obama actually thinks, but for what Iran thinks Obama thinks.

She described Iran's attempts in the U.S. backyard as "disturbing" and "they are building strong economic and political ties with many of these (Leftist Latin American) leaders." ... Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Brazil, Venezuela and Ecuador on May 7 to 8... which Clinton says "I don't think that's in our interest."

So let's think about this: Iran's foreign minister says that he believes Clinton is here contradicting Obama. Let's work backwards and see what is the opposite. Iran's foreign minister apparently believes that Iran's attempts to gain influence in Latin America are the opposite of disturbing = pleasing to Obama. Clinton said it is not in USA's best interests, so apparently Iran's foreign minister believes that Obama thinks it is in USA's best interests. I'm sure Dr Strangelove can offer some sage words about the interesting aspects of the interplay between the meaning intended by a speaker and the meaning that is understood by the listener, and which meaning is more important, particularly with respect to big power politics and speeches by national leaders.