Le Monde was nice enough to transcribe the faxed, typewritten letter, making it considerably easier to read.

Despite its clunkiness due to the language barrier, this letter is a fascinating artifact. I enjoyed this tidbit:

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

I must question NYT's assertion that "the letter did not address directly the central issue that divides the two countries: Iran's nuclear ambitions." His position is straightforward, if unconvincing and logically flawed. He writes:

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Essentially, he is pointing toward the Bill Joy argument, although he gets rather carried away when he writes that "all disciplines must be opposed." And while this is superficially "addressing" the topic, it is really more at misdirection than resolution. I don't think he's going to have much luck getting the UNSC to argue about GM vegetables in lieu of uranium enrichment.

The NYT article did offer this amusing pull-quote from the CFR pundit of the day, in regard to the "values" questions Ahmadinejad raises:

"He might actually inadvertently have a point."