RSS
Using PayPal
Ahmadinejad is No George Bush: Getting a Handle on Iran's Checks & Balances
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Feb 18, 06, 9:09AM
Though he has low favorability ratings and an increasingly large chorus of critics, President Bush has established a template for bold and decisive executive power that seems monarchially ill-disposed to the checks-and-balances of a healthy democracy. In many ways, he has pushed the powers of the Executive Branch beyond the high water mark established by Nixon's presidency at its zenith.
One of the odd but real consequences of Bush's power is that Americans seem to be perceiving other world leaders through a Bush-modeled prism. This is particularly the case with Iran's populist demogogue president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad is clearly hell-bent on creating collisions -- first with Israel, less over its existence than in wanting to do some regional head-butting to establish Iran as a hegemonic rival and in order to embarrass and emasculate Egypt's and Jordan's Muslim leaders. Secondly, Ahmadinejad wants a collision with the West over Iran's nuclear activities to legitimate his revolutionary faction as the authentic national voice of Iran.
But what is strange is that there are numerous forces inside Iran working overtime to impede Ahmadinejad from fulfilling his ambitions -- while America and Europe are doing much to empower him and give him exactly what he wants.
The question of checks-and-balances in Iran is important -- whether they are theocratic or democratic institutions. We need to understand how executive authority in Iran flows -- or Europe and the U.S. may, out of ignorance, empower Iran's president while undermining other players who keep the blustery rhetoric of Ahmadinejad just that.
This fiery, anti-Israel, nuclear-obsessed President in Iran failed to get his preferred Oil Minister past the Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami, or Islamic Consultative Assembly three times. Finally, he had to compromise with other power centers in Iran's government -- who wanted competent manager in that post rather than one of Ahmadinejad's retainers.
This informed comment by Nasrin Alavi gives a picture of the Ahmadinejad-control facility that Iran's other power centers are building:
In fact the president has less power than any of his Islamic Republic predecessors. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has seemingly been startled enough by Ahmadinejad's disruptive tendencies to grant the expediency council (a non-elected body headed by Rafsanjani) oversight of the presidency.This weakness goes back to Ahmadinejad's election victory in June 2005, when accusations of vote-rigging were made by three of his rival candidates (among the seven allowed to compete for the office, from the 1,010 who registered in the attempt) as well as many other observers. The candidates who alleged foul play -- Mehdi Karroubi (onetime speaker of parliament), Mostafa Moin (ex-education minister), and Hashemi Rafsanjani, (ex-president) -- each represent factional power-blocs within Iran, and have continued to chide Ahmadinejad since his power was confirmed.
Ahmadinejad's struggles to install an oil minister after a three-month political deadlock further exposed his political frailty, and the divisions among Iran's conservatives. After three failed attempts, he was finally forced into a major compromise by proposing an acceptable candidate for the post -- one who had backed a political rival during the presidential elections.
And read this analysis titled "Factional Infighting in Iran Complicates Nuclear Diplomacy". (The writer, Kamal Nazer Yasin, is writing this excellent material from inside Iran under a pseudonym.)
He writes:
An ultra-conservative faction in Tehran, headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not interested in exploring compromise on the nuclear issue, according to several political analysts in Tehran.Hardliners evidently believe that confrontation with the West on the nuclear issue could help regenerate a sense of national purpose among Iranians. Political apathy has proliferated in Iran in recent years, due in large measure to the government's inability to address pressing economic problems.
It seems that one of the highest objectives of European and American nuclear negotiators should be to pursue a diplomatic track with Iran that chokes off fuel to Ahmadinejad's nuclear populism -- and working with elements beyond his office and which appeal to Iran's broader public would be a constructive step.
Yasin continues his excellent essay with insights into how factions are lining up to constrain Iran's president:
The hardliners are facing rising opposition from a moderate faction, which appears to enjoy support from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran's Supreme National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani, recently praised some aspects of the Russian plan and emphasized that Tehran did not intend to withdraw from the NPT. Larijani is widely viewed as a political protege of Ayatollah Khamenei's.Ahmadinejad enjoyed the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei during the initial stage of his presidency. But Ahmadinejad's pursuit of a radically conservative political agenda quickly prompted Ayatollah Khamenei to distance himself from the president's faction. The supreme leader, apparently seeing a need for Iran to have a political counter-balance to the presidential faction, has reached out to centrists led by Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
The Rafsanjani-led faction is willing to engage the international community on the nuclear issue. Former nuclear negotiator Hassan Rouhani, who is considered a Rafsanjani protege, suggested in a February 9 interview with the Iranian Student News Agency that a confrontational approach would be counterproductive to Iran's national interests. "Shouting alone won't help us achieve our goals," Rouhani stated. "To stand up to our enemies, we need a multi-pronged, proactive and dynamic strategy."
This isn't to say that other elements of Iran's political sphere are going to be America- or Europe-huggers, but they clearly understand the high costs of both isolation and hot collision.
Another part of this equation that must be further explicated -- another day -- is that isolating Iran, or bombing it, could have staggering and profound consequences for American engagement in the Middle East for decades.
There are dangers -- and complicated costs and benefits -- for Europe, the U.S., Iran, and other players in the Middle East.
But we need to get our antennae working regarding what is real and not on the Iran side of the equation and resist inflating Ahmadinejad's powers to look like those of the "makes-his-own-reality" George Bush.
-- Steve Clemons
Iran's political sphere (at least those in it today) isn't ever going to be pro-US, no matter what we do or don't do. But many of the Iranian PEOPLE are very interested in friendship with the US. It's important to remember that the people of Iran are not the same thing as the government of Iran.
Reality is the sole property of him that has ultimate power. Sole property therefore becomes sole power ergo 'unitary' executives are supreme. When the supreme unitary executive is supremely ignorant, supreme arrogance results in unitary nuclear war. If a twitchy demagogue provokes a supremely unitary reactionary, there will be hell to pay and it will be the innocent that forks over on the tab.
Two more articles can be found at the link below. Especially interesting is his links to the Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th imam's return will be hastened by "the creation of chaos on Earth" which seems to be similar western belivers in Armageddon. Of course who knows if his beliefs are genuine but it works as a populist message
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI09Ak01.html
Steve Clemons >"...There are dangers -- and complicated costs and benefits -- for Europe, the U.S., Iran, and other players in the Middle East.
But we need to get our antennae working regarding what is real and not on the Iran side of the equation and resist inflating Ahmadinejad's powers..."
True !
And "We the people..." need to ask just what was the deal that those American "neo-cons" made with Iran in 1980 ?
Who are those that benefit from these events ?
Aware people should follow along this path
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf the Grey
Steve,
Your comments regarding the risks we run in our colliding with Iran are sound, and I'm sure that most rational observers would agree with you. Maybe BushCo is seeking just the conflagration you refer to. I think they truly expected Iraq to be a cakewalk, but they'd have to be insane to expect bombing Iran won't cause ramifications of possible nightmarish proportions. So my question to you is: Are they nuts or are they nuts? That is, are they so insane that they don't think there would be dire consequences of such an intervention, or do they actually hope for such dire consequences?
President Bush has established a template for bold and decisive executive power that seems monarchially ill-disposed to the checks-and-balances of a healthy democracy.
Surely you jest.
Just as Bush is historically and practically a complet non-participator in the formation of the so-called Bush doctrine so is he a complete non-participator in the strengthening of the powers of the POTUS.
One word will suffice: Cheney!
"One of the odd but real consequences of Bush's power is that Americans seem to be perceiving other world leaders through a Bush-modeled prism."
Are you suggesting America is worried because we look at Ahmadinejad and think, "Oh sh$t, another George Bush"?
I didn't know it was THAT BAD....
Clearly, the Iranian situaiotn is extremely complicated. But whatever the worst possible course of action is, trust BushCo to take it.
There were factions in Iraq that manipulated the US to do what it did. Which factions in Iran are pretending there is an "evil enemy" in order to do the same in Iran?
"you suggesting America is worried because we look at Ahmadinejad and think, "Oh sh$t, another George Bush"?"
I wonder how many Iranians think that. My guess is very few.
The sad and disturbing factbasedreality is that America and the rest of the world will have to learn to tolerate a nuclear capable Iran just as we do Pakistan.
Pakistan is one bullet away from jihadist nukes.
Iran already jihadist is one step away from nukes and tragically, as with Pakistan, - there is absolutely nothing any one anywher can do about now.
The impotent incompetent chickenhawks and fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government can issue stern warnings and make veiled threats, - but Iran sits on the 4th largest oil reserves, has a very well concealed spread out and disparate nuke research and development base, decent air defenses, a strong well equipped and trained fighting force, (not too mention jihadist militias) conventional weapons capable of striking Israel or American bases or force concentrations in the region, and the full support of every jihadist on the planet should any act of aggression against Iran take place, - so the real options available to stem Irans' WMD development programs (and no one dares to mentions bugs or chem) are unfortunately quite limited.
We can all thank the incompetent chickenhawks, and fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government for America's meager military and political options as a direct result of the bloody costly plunder profiteering and unnecessary war of choice in Iraq which is bogging down and straining America's military, and which has erased any sliver of American political credibility or legitimacy everywhere on earth.
America has absolutely no reasonable military or political options to play against Iran.
Our economic options are even more shattering. Iran is rich with oil at $35.00 a barrel. At $60.00 or (Allah be praised) higher, Iran's economic power and the ability to easily hurt the wests oil intensive economies is potent and worrisome. In addition the added oil revenues provide Iran (as well as Saudi Arabia and all the other oil rich jihadist states) with the wealth to purchase and/or produce more weapons materials, technologies, systems, and assets.
The Bush government - bent on neverendingwar and delirious with unfettered power, - and far beyond the realm of reason, may very resort to some kind of futile military action against Iran unilaterally or in concert with Israel, as an intended catalyst to usher in the Armaggedon, and the insane rapturist fundamentalist evangelical christian delusions and pervesions , - but the end result of this madness, murder, and mayhem for all the world will be global, longlasting, and exceedingly costly and bloody.
We will all get exactly what we deserve.
The longer America tolerates fascists and criminals as leaders and pretends they are operating in good faith, or promoting some noble cause, (which is obviously FALSE) - the greater the possibility of more war, more blood, and significantly less freedom and prosperity.
If America chooses to abide the fascist policies and dictates of the Bush government, - then we actually deserve whatever fiery pit and hell the Bush government warmongers, profiteers, incompetent chickenhawks, and religous maniacs hurl us into.
"Deliver us from evil!"
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan are not the danger they would be in the hands of Iran. France has nuclear weapons, yet we don't worry about that at all. So does India. The problem with Iran is that its leadership is nuts. Same with North Korea.
Not if you were sane you couldn't.
Consider this possibility:
Did America fix the Iranian elections to get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected as the Iranian President?
Does it not serve the neocon interests best to have rigged the election to get this radical in place so that it could be all systems go for the preplanned attack on Iran, when the doves would have ensured an "unwanted" diplomatic initiative?
Just a stray thought!
France is a longstanding thriving democracy and was once a vital ally of America.
Any fool who buys into the Bush government disinformation and propaganda sliming France for failing to bow to the Bush governments insanity, predation, plunder and profiteering in Iraq, is obviously wildly misinformed, pathetically ignorant history, or mindlessly partisan and does not deserve serious recognition.
France is and always has been since the American revolution a staunch ally of America. Our troops fight side by side with French forces now in Afganistan, and through out the world. France's intelligence is one of the best in the business and works with the US on WMD proliferation and waronterror operations just like Britain.
Including France into this discussion proves just how potent, deceptive and successful is the Bush government disinformation warfare campaign against the American people, - who like ignorant idiots and mindless parrots mindlessly consider France an enemy or threat, because Carl Rove orders them to, - and at the same time either ignores, excuses, or actually shields the American hating wahabi rooted, jihadist mass murder gang funding and nurturing duplicitous oil shaitans and sworn enemies of America in Saudi Arabia as Bush government "good friends".
This kind of pathetic ignorance defies logic.
In addition, Pakistan under Mushareff, who refuses to allow US military forces into Pakistan, - who pardonned AQ Khan (who provided Iran with critical nuke technology), - who before 9/11 was the only nation to fully recognize and support the Taliban, - and who has jihadist mass murder gangs lurking on every corner of every street in every city in Pakistan, and has survived two assasination attempts that we know about - is easily as much as a danger as Iran.
Pakistan is again one bullet away from jihadist nukes. Musharef, (despite the naked lies, deceptions, propaganda, and disinformation pimped by the facsist Bush government warmongers, profiteers, and incompetent chickenhawks) is no friend of America, and only aligns with the Bush government to serve Pakistani interests like oil, and US weapons.
We are in total agreement that Iran like NK is run by leadership that is "nuts". So by the way is America.
The point which you fail to address is that "nuts' or not - there is absolutely NOTHING the Bush government can do now to prevent Iran from pursuing and achieving its' nuclear ambitions.
The point which you fail to address is that "nuts' or not - there is absolutely NOTHING the Bush government can do now to prevent Iran from pursuing and achieving its' nuclear ambitions.
Well, nuking targets in Iran would obviously obstruct Iran from pursuing and achieving its nuclear ambitions for awhile.
As you probably know, the road to peace in the Jerusalem goes thru Iraq, Iran, and then Syria.
Messers Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al have been thinking, writing, and acting on this since the 1990s.
They are not nuts.
They are, particularly Wolfie, evil geniuses: Bush is the perfect useful idiot.
Tony, I believe you missed my point. It was that we don't worry about France having nukes BECAUSE it is a democracy. And not run by nuts. It isn't because it is or has been a friend of the US. The USSR couldn't always have been said to be a friend of the US yet it having nukes wasn't in the same class as Iran having them. Or North Korea. At some point you may have to realize that there is something different about the leadership of Iran and North Korea. I know you don't like the current US administration but claiming that any US administration is somehow akin to Amadinejad's or Kim's just makes you look unserious.
And of course there IS quite a bit the US government can do to prevent Iran from having nukes, up to and including levelling the place. Obviously not the first choice but let's not pretend that it couldn't be done.
Before anyone tries to read it this way, the USSR point wasn't of course that it was a democracy. It was that it wasn't run by nuts.
Dear God,
Thanks for the missive. I realize now that the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and incompetent chickenhawks in the Bush government are NOT "nuts", BUT "evil genious". One thousand thanks. Amen.
You believe your parables, avaroo and I'll believe mine, and whatever happens with regard to, or with Iranian WMD development programs remains at this moment an unknown unknown.
You can invent or conjure the grand scenarios and the ability to turn Tehran to glass, or "level the place"- but woe to American interests and America afterward, if we fail, for all the iblis and jin will be unleashed.
Perhaps Russia or China or some South American cartel - all keen on countering American predation and hegemony retaliates in some unknown unknown way, - perhaps the oil disruption ripples through the world economies spiking oil and energy futures and markets, and wrenching the lives of poor and middle class Americans and Europeans and thier economies, - perhaps we fail to wipe out every individual Iranain WMD asset - and Iran delievers a Nuke or something more hideous into or above the Green Zone, or Teliviv - the point is - none of us knows what will happen, and most of us don't want to know, and do not accept the preemptive unilateral use or misuse of nukes.
Once we've crossed that rubicon, - all bets are off.
Saying or proclaiming, or imagining that America can "nuke Iranian targets", and/or :"level the place" - and actually doing it successfully and within acceptable costs in blood, treasure, and consequences, is something quite different, and yet to be determined.
Lost in all this pathological glorification and exaltation of war and nuking our enemies, and leveling other peoples places - is the sad factbasedreality that Iran has not attacked or engaged in any act of aggression against any nation to warrant this kind of massively destructive response.
The Bush government has no reasonable options in Iran. Flinging nukes helter skelter in Iran is and plagued with uncertainties and unknown unknown perils, and more likely to enflame the world, - not temper it, - and so not a viable, practical, - not to mention moral - solution.
Our government feeds on blood and war, not peace and civil society.
We support a totalitarian dictatorship commandeered by fascist cabals and oligarchs operating in secret, above, beyond, and outside the law,and bent on increasing the wealth of select cronies, cabals, and oligarchs, and advancing the insane delusions and supremist designs of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda, - the Project for the New American Century. Sig heil, sig heil, sig heil.
"Deliver us from evil."
Given the talk of ballot-rigging as well as the seemingly counterproductive, militant stance of Ahmadinejad, it does make one wonder if his ascent was hastened with help from certain...ahem...elements in the west. What better way to provoke conflict - which is precisely what the neo-con/PNAC element wants - than to ensure that a provacateur is in place to foment the requisite outrage on the other side? Just as the U.S. needed a reason to send troops to the Middle East (9/11) and then to invade Iraq (WMD), it now is laying the convenient groundwork to attack Iran (nukes).
Does that sound a bit conspiratorial? It should. If the American public knew what really takes place in the proverbial shadows, they would spontaneously combust. Don't put anything - ANYTHING - past the PNACers. That's why they call themselves the "Project for the New American Century". It is, quite simply, a grand plan for world domination. Check out their web site and learn for yourselves:
Sadly, I agree with you Drew. While there are no *reasonable* options in Iran, - again - as you point out - the PNACers do not operate in the realms of reason.
The problem then is the unknown unknown global potentially biblical consequences likely to arize in the responses from Iran, other jihadist states, other mass murder gangs, and individual jihdist mass murderers all over the planet.
It's hardly invention to say that the US could level Iran if it chose to do so. I'm afraid that I no longer believe the dire predictions of what the Arab street will do if the US takes action. Sorry but they've just fallen short too many times. I remember quite clearly the predictions that the muslim world would explode with rage if we attacked Iraq. That muslim "brotherhood" thing is waaaaaaaaaay overestimated.
How is Russia going to "retaliate"? And more importantly, why would they? Or China for that matter? Yes, surely oil markets would be effected if we attacked Iran. Nothing we couldn't live through. I don't think we'd HAVE to "wipe out every individual Iranian WMD asset" any more than we killed ever nazi. What we have to do is convince enough Iranians that they don't want leadership that cannot get along with the rest of the world. The same way we convinced Germans of that.
"- and Iran delievers a Nuke or something more hideous into or above the Green Zone, or Teliviv"
Right now, I doubt they could do that. Next year, who knows? That's why they need to be stopped now.
"the point is - none of us knows what will happen"
If this is your justification for never taking action on anything, it's pretty weak.
"and most of us don't want to know"
most of us DO want to know that we are safe
"and do not accept the preemptive unilateral use or misuse of nukes."
We wouldn't have to use nukes to level Iran. We have plenty of weapons that would do the job nicely.
"Lost in all this pathological glorification and exaltation of war and nuking our enemies"
haven't seen any of that but...
"is the sad factbasedreality that Iran has not attacked or engaged in any act of aggression against any nation to warrant this kind of massively destructive response."
My guess is that you wouldn't view any action on Iran's part as worthy of US response. Iran IS obligated, as a signatory to the NNPT to abide by its provisions. Or do you believe the UN shouldn't exist?
"Our government feeds on blood and war, not peace and civil society."
Knock off the hysteria. This is the US you're talking about, land of HDTV. We avoid war like the plague, we're quite happy sitting here at home making money.
In 2002 I spoke with a Japanese international banker about the beating of the Iraq war drums that was then reaching a crescendo.
His take was twofold:
1. The pre/post-9/11 discontinuity was local to the US and quantitiative, not qualitative. In world terms, terrorism was nothing new.
2. Bush's bellicosity looked like it would electoral victory in Brazil to the US's less-preferred candidate (which it subsequently did) and Brazil was just a current example of how bad Bush was for business from both a US & global point of view.
"terrorism was nothing new"
that makes it acceptable?
Sorry, but Brazil? LOL
Of all the world leaders WITH Bush, how many of them have been re-elected? Seems like a pol was more likely to be re-elected if he was aligned with Bush than if he wasn't.
The point I was hoping to make, which you brushed past with your supremist presumptions that America can do whatever we want, where ever and when ever we want.
I am not the only one advancing a contrary opinion.
"Both the CIA and DIA have conducted war games to determine the consequences of an American air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to Newsweek (September 27, 2004), "No one liked the outcome." According to an Air Force source, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." In December 2004, The Atlantic Monthly reported similar results for its own war game on this question. The architect of these games, Sam Gardner, concluded, "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran."
Sans the bravado, - the factbasedreality is that Iran is not Iraq, and that attacking Iran, like attacking Iraq is fraught with many unknown unknowns, - so unless there is some dire or imminent threat, - perhaps it would be wiser or at least more reasonable to seek solutions outside of military intervention.
The not-wanting-to-know refers to the use of nukes, which - again while easily fantacized and talked about, - when actually applied will uncork a wild and unimaginable array of possible reprecussions and responses.
Lastly, there Arab street is no more or no less a force than we make it, but if you consider all the events in Europe, Iraq and Iran and all the death and destruction in the last few years, - it seems obvious the Arab street is quite active.
Another attack on a muslim nation that did not attack America will enflame an already hot muslim population that will respond to America's unprovoked aggression by whatever means necessary.
You might want to read some of what our military and intelligence apparatus are warning about military options against Iran in addtion to the belligerent boasting and chest thumping of the fascist warmonger, profiteers, and incompetent chickenhawks in the Bush government, the RNC, AEI, Newsmax, and Rush.
The fact that the wingnutsia and Bush government apologencia are freely ruminating on nuking Iran, reducing Tehran to glass, or leveling the place proves the beliefs and positions of truebelievers are wildly misinformed, intrinsically supremist, and morally repugnant.
You might also want to revisit your recent elections history lessons, because with a couple of exceptions - the world is electing leaders opposed to the Bush government and American hegemony.
Tony, let's at least try to be honest. At no point did I say anything even vaguely close to "America can do whatever we want, wherever and whenever we want". I do not respond to misstatements of what I have said.
Iran is not Iraq, and attacking anywhere is "fraught with many unknown unknowns"
"so unless there is some dire or imminent threat, - perhaps it would be wiser or at least more reasonable to seek solutions outside of military intervention."
Well, there was no dire or imminent threat (at least to the US) from Germany in the 40's.
If your point is that there are unknowns in taking any action, I agree. I'm not sure it is much of a point though.
The fact is, the Arab street did NOT react as many Chicken Little's predicted it would after the US went into Afghanistan and Iraq. You might want to consider how frequently muslim nations attack OTHER muslim nations and peoples and perhaps you'll realize that there is almost ZERO unity among arab/muslim peoples.
"You might also want to revisit your recent elections history lessons, because with a couple of exceptions - the world is electing leaders opposed to the Bush government and American hegemony."
Really? What about Blair? Howard? Koizumi? Heck, even Martin in Canada lost. Schroeder lost.
Other than Spain, which Bush ally has lost an election?
Not impressed with the quality of dialogue here, too much hyperbole.
Avaroo, you get a D for avoiding hyperbole instead of an F. I'd start with your statement "the difference between the Soviet Union and Iran is that Iran's government is nuts."
Really? Have you been over in Teheran conducting inkblot tests on their leaders? Do you have any evidence or facts? Or do the leaders of Iran simply have opinions and policy stances you don't like - a lot like at least 100 other countries in the world?
tell me, what has Iran done that obviously qualifies as nuts? Invaded other nations recently? Nope. Had a lot of anti-American marches in the streets, like every other nation between Morroco and India? Made nasty comments about Israel - like, say Malathir Mohammed of Malaysia, whom no one seems to be interested in invading? Tried to obtain nuclear weapons - with no less than three unscrupulous, belligerent nuclear-armed nations in its area - Russia, Pakistan and Israel?
Don't like Israel in there? Well, if they hadn't unquestionably launched aggressive wars in 1967, 1956 and 1982, maybe I wouldn't have included them.
In what way are they more 'nuts' then the Soviet Union, which invaded at least six sovreign states, funded revolutionary movements in half the world, and killed 40 million of their own people?
Yet, somehow, containment worked.
Exactly how is Iran more dangerous? Details, please.
"Really? Have you been over in Teheran conducting inkblot tests on their leaders? Do you have any evidence or facts?"
Are you saying that you've never heard President Amadinejad?
The only legitimate comparison with events today and Germany in the 1940's is the inisidious eruption of fascism, particularly here in America.
It is not about not taking action. Its about what action can be taken, and the point I am trying to make is that the insane delusion that America is capable of burdening another costly bloody unnecessary war of choice in the ME, or more directly that the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and incompetent chickehawks in the Bush government can appease the supremist wingnutsia pychopaths by flinging nukes at Iran, - is a fiction based on a myth, with not basis in reality, facts, or reason.
The action we can and should take is diplomatic. Military action in Iran will unleash of pandora's box of potential responses, America cannot afford or countenance.
The factbasedreality is that the Bush government has failed America so monsterously and in so many ways, that it will take decades to reveal all the problems and crisis our children will be forced to burden and hazard as a direct result of this governments fascist imperialist corporatist, rapturist designs and machinations, and the situation in Iran is only one example.
"Its about what action can be taken"
Well, lots. As I mentioned before, we could actually level the place from the air. Whether we would or not is another matter.
Diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to engage. As with Hitler in Germany, Ahmadinejad in Iran is not a willing partner.
I've heard all about the potential responses before we went into Iraq and none of that came true. I have little faith in the powers of prediction of chicken little types. Sorry.
Reader Comments (33) - post a comment