Ron Paul shows once again why he will never be the GOP presidential nominee

By Michael J.W. Stickings (@mjwstickings)

Via twitter: 

"Ron Paul says suggestion that Iran is pursuing nukes is 'war propaganda,' 'danger is overreacting.' Who thinks he can be GOP nominee?" 

-- Rick Klein (@rickklein)

No one with an ounce of sanity. Or at least no one with the slightest understanding of the Republican Party.

In the GOP, unfairly or not, Ron Paul is a freak show.

**********

Update: By the way, this is not to say that Paul's foreign/military views shouldn't be taken seriously, just that they're not taken seriously and are actually bitterly opposed by most of the GOP, particularly at the elite level (politicians, pundits).

I don't necessarily agree with his anti-interventionism (and anti-internationalism), which is really just isolationism (and hence irresponsible), but his views, which are the views of a fairly significant libertarian and paleo-conservative constituency on the right, and similar to the views of some on the left, where he has some admirers (for example, Glenn Greenwald), certainly should be part of the discussion.

For a good take on this, see this piece by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic.

Newt the Neocon calls for military action against Iran

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"lrozen: Gingrich calls for regime replacement in Iran, block its imports of petrol, sabotage their refinery, support all dissident grps"

Because, of course, this has worked so well in the past, particularly in the Middle East.

Newt calls himself a student of history, but he hasn't got a fucking clue. Engaging Iran militarily would be a disaster.

Newt's a right-wing militarist, and here he's just sucking up to the neocons, and more specifically to the right-wing Israel lobby that is at the core of neoconservatism, hoping no doubt to secure some Jewish votes (with the early primary in Florida and an opportunity to crush Romney front of mind).

And, of course, he's also a shameless and largely unprincipled partisan. Remember when he was against President Obama's military engagement in Libya?

U.S. government alleges Iranian involvement in plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador. But something stinks.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you've likely heard by now, it is being reported that Iran has been implicated in an assassination plot in the U.S.:

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" by a faction of the government and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law.

"The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said. 

Wait... what? Really? Iran? Terrorism? Against a high-value Saudi target in the U.S.? Something doesn't seem right.

As Max Fisher asks at The Atlantic -- and more people need to be asking this -- "would Iran really want to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.?"

Assuming that Iran is thinking rationally, the answer is obvious: No.

If they would go through all the trouble to organize a bombing attack on U.S. soil -- no easy thing to do -- why target someone so low-level? For that matter, why launch an attack on U.S. soil at all, something Iran has never done in the tumultuous decade since September 11? Why now, as opposed to, for example, during the height of the Iraq war? Why incur the wrath of the U.S. now, so soon after releasing the U.S. hikers detained in Tehran? (Their release was a modest and long overdue concession, but one that suggests the path of Iranian diplomacy.)

And why get involved with Mexican drug cartels? Is that really someplace where Iran has good contacts these days? As Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress asked, "Wiring money into US? Talking about plot on phone? Does that sound like an intel service to you?"

All that said, it really is possible that this is exactly what Holder says it is. Stranger things have happened, and Iran may have simply made an enormous, if out-of-character and obviously self-hurting, blunder. It's also possible that the two Iranian men really were planning to bomb the ambassador, but are either rogue members of the Revolutionary Guards or not really members at all. Clearly, there is much more information in this story that has not yet been made public. Maybe that information, if it ever comes out, will back up the official U.S. version -- which the White House already says it will use to escalate sanctions -- and maybe it will tell a different story. But, either way, the story as we now know it would have been unlikely to persuade Iran's leaders that this was a good idea.

It's just not in Iran's interests to be involved with something like this. And, indeed, there's no evidence -- at least no evidence that has been released publicly -- that Iran's government was behind this alleged plot:

The Justice Department statement notes that two men "have been charged in New York for their alleged participation in a plot directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives while the Ambassador was in the United States."

But what elements? What does that even mean?

One of the men is an Iranian-American. The other is "an Iran-based member of Iran's Qods Force, which is a special operations unit of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that is said to sponsor and promote terrorist activities abroad." Okay, but does this mean the plot was officially sanctioned -- and that therefore Iran needs to be held accountable "for its actions," as Holder put it?

The statement notes that there are "Iran-based co-conspirators." Okay, maybe, but it seems far more likely that these two men and whatever shadowy co-conspirators they had in Iran had gone rogue, perhaps with rogue elements of Qods supporting them, than that this was some officially sanctioned operation. Indeed:

Senior Obama administration officials said the U.S. currently does not have any information indicating that either Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad necessarily knew about the assassination plot and said the U.S. will pursue a path of response that would not include the possibility of an armed conflict with Iran. 

So, then, what? Other countries with whom the U.S. has been on generally good terms (e.g., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) have rogue elements operating within "the government." Iran just happens to be... well, not a friend, and so an easy target. (And let's not forget that the U.S. even kills its own citizens without anything resembling due process. President Obama has made assassination a core component of his ongoing war on terror.) 

As Steve Clemons writes, "[t]his alleged assassination plot simultaneously may indicate both the intensity of anti-Saudi passion among Iran's senior leaders and a greater aggressiveness by Iran against the U.S." But what if there's much less to it than Holder and the U.S. government would have us believe? Even it's not true that the story is pure fabrication, as Iran suggests -- there may very well have been some sort of plot, after all -- what if the allegations are being trumped up for political reasons? Bush-Cheney did that all the time. Do we really think Obama is above such things?

(What possible political reasons? To suck up to the Saudis? To suck up to Israel? -- especially important given 2012, and Obama has already vetoed Palestinian statehood. To vilify Iran even more? For Obama to show that he and his administration are tough on terrorism? Who knows.)

Think Progress has a couple of updates:

-- "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the AP that the alleged terror plot, which she said 'crosses a line,' also 'creates a potential for international reaction that will further isolate Iran.' The U.S. is in discussions with other countries about potential diplomatic moves to hold Iran to account." 

But shouldn't there be more evidence to justify any such international moves?

-- "'One thing that's important to remember,... these are serious allegations but at this point they are just allegations,' said CNN's Reza Sayah, 'And if you look at this regime's history, it doesn't fit their M.O. Is it possible that they were involved? Certainly. Do these allegations need to be proven, do we need to see more details? I would say certainly before jumping to conclusions.'"

Yes, exactly, allegations. But jumping to conclusions is what people are doing, and how could they not? The Justice Department statement is somewhat qualified in its claims, but the public message is that Iran was directly behind the plot. And the media, needless to say, are running wild with it. Sexy stories like this don't come around every day, after all, and they're in the business of selling fear, not nuance, of engaging in idle speculation, not rational examination of the facts.

Look, I'm not saying there wasn't a plot, and, if there was, I'm not saying Iran wasn't involved in it. Maybe it was, if not officially at least through rogue elements with ties to terrorism, rogue elements either acting on their own or with the unofficial blessing of someone higher up the food chain.

But something stinks here, and it wouldn't surprise me if this just faded away, political points having been made.

HBO's Koran By Heart: Can't contest this documentary's greatness

By Edward Copeland

This week's installment in HBO Documentary Films' summer series, Koran By Heart, is being promoted mainly as a film about the International Holy Koran Competition where young Muslims from around the world descend on Cairo to compete in a spelling bee-like competition testing their skills at reciting the Koran, both in terms of memorization and presentation. While that is the major focus of director Greg Barker's film, Koran By Heart tackles so much more than the competition and contains a richness and universality that makes the documentary a film that should be required viewing for everyone.

The documentary covers the 2010 competition which, as the contest always has, occurs during the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan, which begins today and commemorates the month when the first verses of the Koran were said to have been revealed to Mohammed. Because of the Arab Spring, particularly with Hosni Mubarak's ouster in Egypt, it wasn't clear if there would be an International Holy Koran Competition this year, especially in Cairo. Google news searches could find similar contests being held in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but no mention of the large contest or, of the documentary's most fascinating figure, Dr. Salem Abdel-Galil, deputy minister of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Egypt, who coordinates the contest. I could find no news stories indicating if this self-proclaimed moderate Muslim warning against extremism and fundamentalists still holds his post, but found that he does have a public figure page on Facebook.

Dr. Salem does take on a monumental task in arranging the event. He lets his staff handle the logistics, which would be overwhelming alone, making certain that 110 competitors from 70 different countries all make it to Cairo for the event. They range in age from their early 20s to as young as 7 and some, even the young ones, come without adult chaperones. The reciters, as they are called, all are Muslims, but all hail from different parts of the world and have learned to memorize the Koran in Arabic even though many do not speak Arabic and don't understand the content of what they are saying. While Salem's staff takes care of the administrative side, he concerns himself with what he calls "the creative" side, namely orchestrating how the contest runs. He chooses the questions and decides the criteria for judging the reciters. "The Koran is the only book that can be completely memorized. It's a miracle children can memorize it even without understanding its meaning," Dr. Salem says. I hate to differ with him, but being raised in the Bible Belt, I've known a lot of people who can recite Bible verses to you and if you try, anything can be memorized. Dr. Salem also has other duties with his job unrelated to the annual contest. He oversees 100,000 mosques and also is a well-known media personality in Egypt, hosting his own weekly TV show, The Final Word, where he preaches his message of moderate Islam and being true to the Koran, saying extremism and terrorism goes against Mohammed's teachings. As he says when we first meet him in the film:

"The irresponsible actions you see in some Muslims are because they are estranged from the Koran or don't understand the Koran. So stealing, sex outside of marriage, intoxication, injustice, aggression and terrorism — these are not allowed"

With 110 competitors, that would be a daunting task for filmmakers as well so director Greg Barker chooses to focus on three 10-year-olds from different parts of the globe:

Nabiollah, who lives in rural Tajikistan and attends a Madrassa where the only education he receives concerns the Koran.

Rifdha, a very smart girl from the Maldives Islands in the Indian Ocean who excels in all subjects, especially math and science, and is one of only 10 girls in the contest, though her parents have very different visions for her future.

Djamil, who is coming to Cairo by himself from his home in Senegal in West Africa, and has been told by his teacher that he won't just be representing Senegal but the entire continent as well.

Djamil feels an extra burden on his shoulders since his father is a respected imam in Senegal, though the boy has risen to be the country's top reciter without being able to speak a word of Arabic. He tells the filmmakers that his parents told him to learn the Koran before anything else and that every Muslim should do the same. Besides, Djamil adds, he "likes the way the letters look." Djamil's teacher sounds a message similar to that of Dr. Salem's as he prepares to send his star pupil off to Cairo by himself. "Now as you go to Egypt, the world is a mess. People are bombing and killing each other, but if all people understood Koran, there would be peace on Earth," the teacher tells the 10-year-old. "So by not using the Koran as God intended, what is the result? All these problems in the world and what is the solution? Return to the Koran. Learn it. Apply it." It still seems odd to be sending a 10-year-old child off on his own to another country, especially one where he doesn't speak the language. Later, once Djamil has arrived in Cairo, there's a scene where he's trying to speak with his mother on a cell phone, but the connection proves so terrible that neither can hear the other. It shows the family in Senegal saying they must have faith that Djamil will be OK.

Above and beyond the fascinating material itself in Koran By Heart, is the way that director Barker approaches it. At times, it's as if you're watching a feature film instead of a documentary. His direction can be quite stylish, the contest itself automatically creates suspense, he tosses in extra details for both color and, sometimes, laughs as in one instance where some visiting judges are congregating in a lobby and one says to the others, "At my hotel, the call to prayer is done Saudi-style morning, noon and night. Are we in Egypt or what?" which makes the others laugh. There also is something intrinsically funny when we briefly meet Australian Muslims speaking with full-on Aussie accents. Barker's most intriguing touch though is how he layers more information about the people and places we've seen by leaping both backward and forward in time to reveal more. For example, we don't learn until much later in the film that before Nabiollah, the boy from Tajikistan, left for Cairo, the secular government of Tajikistan had closed his Madrassa, trying to clamp down on any rise in extremism. His father took him to a secular school to see if he could be admitted there and we learn that Nabiollah is functionally illiterate. Since the Madrassa only taught the Koran, the 10-year-old can't even read or write in his native language of Tajik, let alone Arabic.

The competition itself makes marathon poker players look like wimps since they get breaks and can eat and drink at the table. The International Holy Koran Competition has qualifying rounds first that last three days and nights — during Ramadan, which means everyone fasts during the day, though they break for the traditional sunset meal. The night session begins at 9:30 p.m. and lasts until 3 a.m. Rifdha actually falls asleep on her father's shoulder waiting for her name to be called. Her father, who will turn out to be the most extreme person depicted in the documentary, never stops being negative and even after Rifdha shakes herself awake and recites, when she returns to her seat, he immediately tells her that she won't make it to the next round so while Rifdha might be happy when she learns she's received 97%, the highest score of the competition so far, her father just looks pissed. How the contest works is that a reciter selects a symbol on a computer screen which randomly selects a question, beginning a passage from the Koran and telling the contestant where he or she should end. It's like Songburst, except they give you the ending. If a reciter makes a mistake and corrects him or herself, they lose half a point. If a judge has to correct them, they lose a whole point. If they make three mistakes, they forfeit the question. The judges enter scores on their computers, which calculate. 100% is the highest score. They are judged on pronunciation, memorization and "The Rules of Tajwid."

This isn't just dry recitation, there's a musical quality to it. Kristina Nelson, considered the top non-Muslim expert on the contest and author of The Art of Reciting the Qur'an, was attracted by this lyrical aspect. She, as well as the judges are extremely impressed by how good Nabiollah is; he even moves some judges to tears and they make a point of hugging and kissing him when he's finished his performance. Though it's just the beauty of his voice — strictly speaking he doesn't follow the Rules of Tajwid to the letter, but the boy had never heard of them until he came to Cairo. He closes his eyes tightly when he recites to avoid distractions and so he can visualize the text before him. Even though Nabiollah and other non-Arabic reciters don't know what they are saying, Dr. Salem says that the level of Heaven that Muslims reach depend on how much of the Koran they have memorized. According to Nelson, the full text of the Koran runs about 600 pages with 114 chapters ranging from three verses to 286 verses long.

While Nabiollah gets by fine without knowing Arabic, it ends up being Djamil's downfall, who unfortunately gets a Koran verse that starts like multiple verses in the book. The judges try to get the young Senegalese boy on the right track, but he of course doesn't understand a word that they are saying, though he keeps trying, through tears, he keeps trying. The judges finally have to stop Djamil who only scores 22%. Because everyone felt so bad for Djamil but admired his perseverance in trying to continue, they arrange for him to recite at one of Cairo's most prestigious mosques. When he goes home to Senegal, he admits things did not go well, but he's able to say so with a smile on his face. After the initial three days of qualifying, 12 of the 110 move on to the finals which are held on national TV before the country's president, still Hosni Mubarak then, and both Nabiollah and Rifdah make the final 12. I won't spoil how they finish for you. With a few days off, they get to sightsee, something else that alienates Rifdah's father who talks more about moving the family away from the Maldives when they get back and how Egyptians aren't very good Muslims.

The director frequently cuts back to the Maldives where we see Rifdah's mother brag about her and we've seen how different the place is. When we first meet Rifdah, she's speaking English and we meet another man in the Maldives who explains how it's always been a secular Muslim country, where women were allowed to work and go about uncovered but that a fundamentalism started to reassert itself in the 1980s. While Koran By Heart doesn't raise the issue, I find it interesting that the extremist Muslims wanting a return to fundamentalism started to occur first in Iran in the late 1970s and elsewhere in the 1980s — the same time fundamentalist Christian groups such as The Moral Majority starting asserting themselves politically in the U.S. and rabid activist groups such as Operation Rescue started protested abortion in less-than-peaceful ways. Another quote that Dr. Salem says in the film really brought home that connection to me:

"The fundamentalist movement is not good for society. They want Islam to turn back the clock on society. Not long ago, they wanted to ban television…Unfortunately those who promote extremism have satellite TV channels with huge audiences and they get a lot of money and they present themselves as 'the voice of Islam' So their voice is louder than ours and we're the moderates. This is very dangerous."

Just substitute Christianity for Islam and think of the late Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. They might not have a body count that comes close to equaling Islamic extremists such as al-Qaida, but it does seem as if they've followed the same timeline, only one group of religious fanatics chose force while the other has chosen political infiltration.

While I won't give away how Nabiollah and Rifdah finish, that to me is what makes this great documentary end on a sad note. We see Rifdah's mother say she'd like her to go into math or science, but it will ultimately be up to her, but her father has different ideas, insisting that though he plans to move the family to Yemen for better religious education and that Rifdah will be educated, ultimately, she will be a housewife.

Koran By Heart is one of the best documentaries HBO has offered this summer. It debuts at 9 p.m. Eastern/Pacific and 8 p.m. Central tonight on HBO. 

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Whatever happened to the Iran project?

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar 

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France. 

(Ed. note: This is Ali's sixth guest post at The Reaction. Last month, he wrote on the Arab Spring. In March, he wrote on Obama's foreign policy and the secular uprisings in the Middle East. In February, he wrote on dictatorship in Tunisia and Egypt and on the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. I'm making him a fully-fledged contributor. Look forward to more posts from him soon. -- MJWS) 

**********

His beard is long and grey; he is reputed for living a rather simple life, but Israel's prime minister recently called him the greatest threat to the world. He is the Supreme Leader of Iran. As attention remains focused on Abbottabad, Iran's nuclear program continues nearby. Some are hoping that news from Damascus to Fukushima will influence events in Iran, as it fades from foreign policy's short memory. But the mullahs, and Iran's people for that matter, couldn't care less about what happens elsewhere. Now more than ever, to encourage change in the Islamic Republic, incentivized diplomacy is necessary before it's too late.

It is almost mechanical to group Iran with neighboring Arab countries, what with its share of Islamic extremism and oil. But social behavior in Iran is driven by a totally different mindset, and it won't be seeing revolution soon. For better or worse, Iranians feel a deep-rooted disassociation with the rest of the region.

An extension of its social mindset, Iranian politics is significantly different from that of its neighbors. The Iranian government, while autocratic, has traditionally been more democratic than most of the regimes around it. More importantly, the Islamic Republic is itself the product of revolution, making it more established and deeply rooted than any Arab government in the Middle East. While a week of protests in Tahrir square brought about revolutionary dominos in Egypt, weeks of uprisings in 2009 did not beget a single meaningful policy change in Iran.

And in perhaps the same way the massive protests of 2009 did not register a blip on the Arab world's radar, the Arab Spring has done and will do little to motivate Iranians, people and politicians alike. Iranians simply do not perceive countries like Egypt and Syria as trendsetters.

A proud, isolated country, Iran is stubborn about its policy, often to its own detriment. Years of debilitating sanctions demonstrate how far Iran is willing to go to preserve what it views as its sovereignty. So while much of Iran sits in a notoriously busy earthquake zone, and its nuclear plants are reportedly malfunctioning, it has recently announced that it is not apprehensive after events in Fukushima. Even the world's most established nuclear powers are rethinking their energy strategies. Yet another table for one at the Iranian gala.

The international community has long been worried that Iran would build a nuclear bomb and use it. That was never very likely. Now its neighbors are voicing concern that an earthquake in Bushehr (or elsewhere) could have similar catastrophic effects in the region. That is actually significantly more likely.

Consider that Iran today is a stable regime in a region of turmoil. It pulls strings in Afghanistan and Iraq, is buoyed by high oil prices, and has not been dissuaded from its nuclear program. What does all of this mean?

It means the Islamic Republic will continue to play by its own rules, and will only be influenced by incentives. Regime change is not likely in the short term, so the world needs to engage Iran's current government no matter how unpleasant that is. Given Iran's sensitivity to what it perceives as foreign interference, premising this engagement on an improved human rights record is unfortunately untenable.

President Obama's election platform of speaking to America's enemies, Iran being at the top of that list, was promising. Gradually, however, the crown jewel of foreign policy projects has all but slipped off the agenda.

Progress on Iran's nuclear program can be achieved with more carrots and direct diplomacy (Iran's freezing of uranium enrichment in 2004 demonstrates this is possible). There is an added bonus to such a project as well. Since only conservatives in Iran have the legitimacy to make compromise with Iran's enemies, they are likely to move toward the center of the political spectrum while doing so. The byproduct of diplomacy could be further political liberalization and even democratization. Change in Iran needs a jump start. A rigorous diplomatic project is imperative at this juncture.

Their revolution, our game-changer

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar 

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France.

(Ed. note: This is Ali's third guest post at The Reaction. Earlier this month, he wrote a post on dictatorship in Tunisia and Egypt. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. -- MJWS)

Started with the match of a Tunisian who aspired for more, a revolutionary wildfire burns near and far from his resting place. We have already witnessed one of most incredible and unlikely geopolitical shuffles in modern history; still, as this post goes out, Libya's people stand potentially days away from deposing yet another of the world's dictators against all odds. In addition to these being revolutionary times, these are also perception-changing times. Perceptions of peoples and their aptitude for modernity, surely. But most importantly for America, perceptions of the role the rest of the world is going to play in facilitating that modernity.

With the benefit of hindsight, U.S. foreign policy has sometimes been good and sometimes bad. With respect to the Middle East and North Africa, it is probably not controversial to say it has been almost certainly bad. Leaving aside the reality that the majority of the world sees the U.S. as being totally self-interested, we have also managed to sacrifice the stability of those same interests we are thought to be hoarding so maliciously. In every country, we get a D either in terms of the humanity of our policies or the protection of our interests; in many cases, we get a D in both.

I know a bit about Iran, so let's take that example: We went from organizing a coup d'état that ousted a democratically-elected leader in the '50s to supporting Iraq in an invasion against its new popularly-chosen (but in-flux) government in the '80s. This served to bring in and harden the influence of the most extreme elements in Tehran, who still rule that country today, with the price tag of 1.5 million lives. Less than two decades later, we went in and got rid of the two largest threats to Iran's border while it watched and picked off young American soldiers like fish in a barrel, establishing its influence. In the end, we secured neither its respect nor its oil, nor that of its neighbor, while the whole region watched. Henry Kissinger's famous quote on the Iran-Iraq war was that its too bad "they both can't lose". The reality is, they did both lose -- but so did we, in terms of interests and reputation, perhaps the only two factors that matter in international affairs.

In an era of mass transformation, where the world and the region are once again watching, the U.S. has an unprecedented platform to show that it will, at the very least, stand by its ideals. Undoubtedly, perceptions are being formed today about America's propensity to be a constructive player that will follow the U.S. for decades. America may never have this opportunity again.

Now, President Obama's change moniker is without doubt composed partially of hot air. Whether by chance or design, though, the last month has been very kind to the view that some of what he said in his June 2009 Cairo speech was genuine. During the course of revolutionary, albeit unfinished, change in Egypt and Tunisia, the U.S. has walked the tightrope of Middle East policy exceptionally well. That tightrope requires the U.S. to consider its reputation in the region on a case-by-case basis and decide the extent of its action based on any inevitable perception of its involvement, while at the same time being unwilling to sacrifice the ideals of democratic change for peoples who are taking destiny into their own hands.

Whether or not President Obama agrees that the stakes are as outlined above, his policies and his reaction to events suggest he does. Our influence and rhetoric have so far placed the U.S. in a unique position of having encouraged positive change in a region where it is desperate for legitimacy and good-standing (bearing in mind that we not decide how uprisings began or how they will end, but still have a special role to play, for our sake and our reputation). The president explained his choices, confirming that America would place itself on the right side of history while never imitating that it could dictate the outcome of popular will.

So while perceptions are important and good, and affect our interests, what about the interests themselves? The peaceful toppling of these entrenched despots also gives America the opportunity to align those interests with the values it cherishes for its own people. In addition to begetting a positive circle of goodwill that is more likely to serve our physical interests than the shortsighted policy of yesteryears, it also sets the alternative of extremism on its head. No burning U.S. flags in Cairo or Tunis, only cautious thanks for America among a valiant population happy to have friends in high places.

The U.S. has never been a strong ally of Libya, and that among other factors makes its treatment of Libya necessarily different. With the handwriting on the wall in Tripoli, and the work almost done, the U.S. needs to exercise all of its influence to ensure Qaddafi's departure. This means proposing sanctions (largely symbolic) and publicly considering the idea of no-fly zones to prevent the incursion of foreign mercenaries. President Obama needs to speak up and act with intent -- not least because Libya, the region, and the world are watching.

What is the Event ? - November 2010 & the 7th Galactic Underworld !

We are being told of a coming event, that will most likely change our world for ever. What will it be Aliens , Nukes, Financial collapse, Martial law...or all of the above ?...or like everything else are we just being frightened into giving up our energy to the fear vampires that try to control us ?

Jesse Ventura exposes secret FEMA camps ?



Glenn Beck lays out his 15 day financial apocalypse


Market Manipulated to prevent Deflation(lower prices)
I'm no economist but why would lower prices be a bad thing for the average working man



The Simpsons and the 11/6 - 9/11 sync





Or will it be a nuclear apocalypse ?


Was the Carnival Cruise hit by a missle?




An engine fire aboard the 952-foot cruise liner knocked the power out Monday, less than a day into its seven-day trip to the Mexican Riviera. Carnival said a crankcase split on one of the ship’s six diesel engines, causing the fire.

“It felt like an earthquake and sounded like a jackhammer,” said Amber Haslerud, 27, of Chula Vista.
The Magic Cruise ?

...and another missle over NYC

Anarchy (Violent Protests) in the UK

Is this just a case of Wag the Dog


Obama is in Asia outsourcing US manufacturing

Humanity’s climb of the cosmic pyramid continues. The actual Ninth wave will not begin until March 9, 2011 although we are already beginning to feel its approach. Before the final climb to the ninth wave and the ninth level of consciousness can begin we will however need to complete the foundation of the eighth level so that we have something to stand on. The eighth level of consciousness of the cosmic pyramid is what has been carried by the wave movement of the Galactic Underworld that began January 5th 1999 and, as all we nine waves will be completed on October 28, 2011.

As the thirttenth energy, or seventh day, of the Galactic Underworld starts on November 3, 2010 we may say that the particular Yin/Yang-polarity that this has been projecting onto the Earth is locked into position and will not be replaced by any further night in this Underworld.

Just looked upon at face value it would then seem as what we are to align with and celebrate on the weekend of November 6-7 (which follows upon the shift) is a world where the feminine, the intuitive mind and the eastern hemisphere comes to dominate since they would all be linked to this enlightenment of the right brain half. Yet, as we can see from the figure this is not exactly the case since the world was for about 5100 years dominated by the consciousness of the sixth wave where the light fell on the left brain half and so as a result favored the rational mind, male dominance and the West and this is sort part of the platform that we are all already standing on. Hence as the seventh day of the galactic Underworld is activated we will actually finally come to a point when it is time to celebrate the end to male, western and rational dominance and we will be able to create a balance between the different aspects of the human mind associated with the left and right brain halves.

It is from this fundament that we will soon begin our process into the unity consciousness that will be carried by the ninth wave that will be activated on March 9, 2011.

Carl Johan Calleman
Seattle 11 Imix, October 14, 2010
Dr Johan Calleman's Mayan Calendar

...and now FOXNEWS is revealing WTC Building 7 may have been a controlled demolition !!!



What to do what to do ?...Germany leads the way


The Don't Touch My Junk Guy !









- All Rights Reserved 2010 - The Niles Lesh Project Follow NILES LESH / MIENFOKS on TWITTER !

David Broder calls for "showdown" with Iran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I have long thought Broder, the "dean" of the Washington press corps, to be a fool. He is, after all, an advocate of what I have called "difference-splitting centrism," that is, of a centrism that holds the left in contempt that that, for the most part, accedes to Republican demands.

We now have further proof, however, that Broder is not just a fool but utterly insane (or perhaps just a Republican in disguise).

In his WaPo column yesterday, he actually called on Obama, who in Broder's view will not able to spur sufficient economic growth by 2012 to secure re-election, to join with Republicans to go after Iran:

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history. 

But what does that even mean if not an incitement to war? What sort of "showdown" does Broder suggest Obama orchestrate? And isn't the very phrase "orchestrating a showdown" deeply troubling in any context, not least in a liberal democracy, where elected leaders are supposed to conduct the affairs of state more or less openly and certainly only to use the military when absolutely necessary for the sake of national security, not for the sake of re-election? Think what happened the last time a showdown was orchestrated. It got us the Iraq War.

What Broder is calling for here is for war to be waged for political reasons. That is grotesque and outrageous. And yet, of course, Broder is allowed to write and say such things largely unchallenged by his peers -- and to do so from the high-profile platform of The Washington Post.

Otherwise, Broder's very argument, if I may even call it that, is idiotic. It is hardly clear that Iran is "the greatest threat to the world" and, what's more, Republicans have already indicated that they won't cooperate with Obama on anything -- would they really want to give him a "victory" on Iran? (And, really, it is this issue that would make Obama so successful as president? What about pulling the economy back from the brink of disaster, or health-care reform, or Wall Street financial reform, or recovering America's image and credibility abroad, or...?)

Besides, it's not like Democrats support Iran's nuclear ambitions (whatever they really are). Democrats object to Iran's nuclearization, even if Broder would have us believe otherwise. But what many of them also object to is warmongering, which is hardly the best way to deal with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs.

Simply put, what Broder is calling for is not just grotesque and outrageous but incredibly reckless. War is not the answer, and neither is some sort of "showdown," which sounds like something Bush would have said -- and just look how successful Bush's warmongering was. And, lest Broder forget, Obama is already pushing tough line on Iran -- through international sanctions.

It hardly comes as a surprise, but this press corps "dean," this "centrist" voice who wants so badly to be seen to be above the partisan fray, merely channels Cheney, Kristol, and the neocons who so desperately want the U.S. to wage war after war with every enemy imaginable, real or otherwise -- and to benefit politically from doing so by appealing to jingoism.

We should perhaps except such punditocratic abominations from David Broder, but that makes this particular column no less appalling.

Understanding Turkey's foreign policy

By Peter Henne

A few days ago, I returned from a trip to Turkey, sponsored by the Rumi Forum. The trip included visits to four cities in Turkey and meetings with community, business and political groups. As someone who studies Turkey, the trip was an incredible opportunity to learn first-hand about a country I already admire. I have discussed my thoughts on domestic issues in Turkey. I also gained greater insight into the country's foreign policy. 

Throughout the 20th century, Turkish politics was marked by the secular nationalist image instilled in the country by Ataturk's dramatic post-Ottoman reforms. The primary goal of the country's foreign policy was to maintain its security and territorial integrity. This led to a hard stance on minority issues such as the Kurds, hesitation to address the Armenian issue, and tensions with Greece over Cyprus. It also contributed to Turkey's US ties; fearful of the Soviet threat, Turkey allied itself with America and joined NATO. It also established close ties with Israel.

Turkey's foreign policy has changed markedly since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a conservative party with Islamist roots. Opposition to Israeli policies has increased, as has hesitation to support US military actions in Iraq. At the same time, Turkey has reached out more to regional states such as Syria and Iran, made some progress on the Armenia and Kurdish issues, and intensified its efforts to join the European Union. These changes have led to a flurry of speculation, including some decrying Turkey's Islamic or Eastern shift, and others claiming its international relations can be explained by economic interests.

Neither approach is completely accurate. Turkey's relations with Israel and the United States are more strained than they were throughout the Cold War, but they do not represent a complete break. And claims of an Islamic shift in Turkish foreign policy are contradicted by the AKP's great efforts to join the EU. Instead, the two can be seen as part of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu's "Zero-problems" approach to international relations, which involves management of all regional and international issues. This includes regional tensions such as Turkish-Syrian relations and Iran's nuclear program.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to claim economics or material interests alone are driving these changes. Turkish people I met with did discuss the monetary gains from the AKP's policies, but they also discussed their support for the government in terms of its new approach to democracy, and Turkey's historical and cultural ties to surrounding states. Beyond this, there is the fact that something changed with the AKP; something about this party led to a different approach to foreign policy. The potential economic benefits from trade with Syria and EU membership, and the stability to be gained from resolving the Iran issue were present before the AKP came to power. That is, in order to explain Turkey's current foreign policy, one cannot point solely to these international factors, which for the most part remained constant.

Instead, I would argue, it is something about the AKP that led to these changes. Again, it is not a story of an Islamist party coming to power. Instead, we have a conservative party with a broad base. Their supporters include business interests, religiously-minded voters, and minority groups. And the AKP's leaders have a distinct belief in the important role Turkey should play in international politics, which includes economic, security and religious issues. Religion is important to AKP members and supporters, but as a public value, not an Iranian-style theocracy.

When formulating foreign policy, then, Turkish leaders likely weigh these various interests and concerns. Economic gains must be balanced against security, domestic stability and religious values. At times these point in the same direction; Turkish-Syrian ties satisfy Muslim identification among voters, help Turkish businesses, ease regional tensions, raise Turkey's international profile, and alleviate domestic unrest through economic growth. At other times, these pressures may be counteracting each other, such as in the case of Israel or relations with the United States over Iraq; the increased prestige and domestic support gained through Turkish actions on these issues accompany tensions with allies and possible regional instability.

The answer, as always, is more complicated than most let on. Turkey is not becoming an Islamist or anti-Western state, but it is also not only acting on material incentives. Instead, its domestic politics, the makeup of its governing party, and the current state of the international system have combined to create a unique and dynamic foreign policy.

The important question, then, is what does this mean for the United States? Turkey still values its ties with the United States, and there is a great potential for the United States to work closely with Turkey on issues of common concern, such as regional stability, counterterrorism and trade. But America will have to accept some disagreements over the means through which these goals are achieved, just as it does with other allies like Britain and France.

Turkey's changing foreign policy is not a harbinger of a new multipolar world. It is, however, the first chance for the Obama Administration to act on its vision of a "multi-partner" world, which Secretary of State Clinton has laid out. The manner in which the Administration deals with Turkey, then, will have a great impact on its legacy and the US position in the 21st century international system. 

(Previously posted at The Huffington Post.)

Hey Ayatollah, leave those kids alone!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With Roger Waters's permission, and with half the proceeds going to Amnesty International, an Iranian-Canadian Toronto duo called Blurred Vision has recorded a version of "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2" (the "We don't need no education" part) that changes the line "Hey teacher, leave those kids alone!" to "Hey Ayatollah, leave those kids alone!"

As some of you know, I love Pink Floyd (and I'll be at the Air Canada Center on Sept. 15 for the first show of Waters's Wall tour). And I'm a purist. I generally dislike covers of Floyd songs. But this one's pretty good, respectful of the original, and of course it's for a good cause.

Or, rather, two good causes: for Amnesty International and against Iran's oppressive and unjust theocratic regime, which really ought to be obliterated. (No, no, not necessarily through American military intervention, which I oppose and which would likely fail, but preferably through reform from within.)

Here's the video:

Off with his hair!

By Capt. Fogg


Yes, it's hard to get behind anything the government of Iran does: stoning people to death, building nuclear weapons and all that, but to give credit where it's due, they do have the same lack of tolerance for certain hairstyles that I do and when it comes to demonstrating intolerance, Iran has few equals.

Yes, I'm all for freedom of expression, but there are limits and the mullet haircut is beyond that limit. As I'm concerned, ponytails on anyone over 60 and greasy spikes or Mohawks on anyone of any age are an abomination unto the Lord. So yes, I'd be right at home in the Islamic Republic and they certainly agree with me over there about what needs to be stomped out if the human race is to avoid divine retribution. Police in Iran can lop off that ponytail and that mullet can earn you jail time -- and rightly so. As I said, there are limits.

Of course, being a land of compassionate conservatism, Iran has provided an illustrated compendium of hairstyles that, according to Jaleh Khodayar, the man in charge of the government- backed Modesty and Veil Festival, are acceptable in light of "Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law." See for yourself:



(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Turkish dislike: The need for a measured response

Guest post by Michael Lieberman

Michael M. Lieberman, a Truman National Security Project fellow, is an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington D.C., where he works on international regulatory and compliance issues. (The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.)

Ed. note: This is Michael's third post at The Reaction. His first, on how climate change is a real national security threat, is here. His second, on al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Afghan War, is here. This post below was originally published at The Hill's Congress Blog.

**********

While few individuals could make supporters of Israel miss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is doing his best. In the wake of the Mavi Marmara raid, Turkey's rhetorical molotovs stopped short of saying Israel should be "wiped off the map." But statements like those Erdogan made earlier this week accusing Israel of "a planned terrorist attack to kill out of nothing but hostility," coming as they do from an ostensible ally, make the words bite all the more. Turkey's active efforts to undermine sanctions efforts against Iran have further fueled the embers. What, then, should the U.S. do?

Some in Congress, including House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) believe the U.S. should now pass the controversial Armenian genocide resolution, which Turkey vehemently opposes. The neocon right, which sees every new moon as evidence of jihadist ascendance, believes we should tag Turkey as the new leader of the Islamic front in a great civilizational clash. Some on this side have even suggested Turkey no longer deserves full NATO membership. Responses like these, however, are punitive -- not good policy.

Others reject any talk of "punishment," recognizing that Turkey's history with the West has had its historical ebbs and flows, that Turkey remains rooted in NATO and the G20, and that Turkey's domestic politics all but demand its current path. Yet explaining away Turkey's disturbing trajectory does little to help us deal with it.

Then there are those who argue that the rift has a silver lining. According to this logic, Turkey's recent activities should comfort Israel and its allies. "With Turkey as the central interlocutor between the Islamic/Arab world and Israel and the West," they believe, "Iran will increasingly find it harder to carry out its agenda of destabilizing the region and the globe." This view is attractive, yet over-optimistic. Iran relies on harder currency than public opinion to sow discord. Weapons, cash, and training for the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Taliban enjoy a more favorable rate of exchange.

Turkey's eclipse of Iran would be a positive development only if it distinguishes itself by constructive behavior. What good will Turkey's enhanced role be if it calls for a one-state solution? Or if it recognizes a unilaterally declared Palestinian state? Or when, as it has already done, it acts to undercut new sanctions against Iran?

It is no gain to have a more influential and powerful Turkey pursuing causes detrimental to Western interests -- indeed, in this way Turkey's credibility in the Muslim world is a double-edged scimitar.

Turkey has not capitalized on its unique position, for example, by positioning itself as an honest broker between Israel and Syria. In fact, Turkey has taken a number of concrete steps to Israel's detriment. It has canceled official defense deals, threatened to sever diplomatic ties, and adopted a policy of denial on military overflights. This last step is yet another boost to Iran, weakening Israel's deterrent against its nuclear plans.

Despite this bleak picture, the U.S. and its NATO allies should not succumb to alarmist claims that Turkey is "lost" or seek to punish it through emotive, futile gestures. Yet Turkey's provocations ought not go unanswered. It is not "punishment" to remind Turkey of the need to act responsibly, and of the consequences if Turkey truly feels its interests lie so contrary to the West's. A proper answer to Turkey's erratic behavior is thus to remind it subtly of the logic of the security partnership underlying that bond.

On this view, the U.S. might consider re-raising the question of the need for NATO tactical nuclear missiles on Turkish territory. This idea is attractive for several reasons. First, the issue long precedes the current debate, and so could not be painted as a vindictive reaction. Second, it goes to the core of Turkey's security concerns, heightening the specter of a nuclear Iran. And third, it dovetails nicely with President Obama's broader nuclear agenda.

While this issue is part of a larger issue regarding U.S. tactical nukes in allied states, raising it could be warning enough. Along the same lines, the U.S. should veto NATO military exercises on Turkish soil so long as Turkey refuses to host Israel. In either case, the U.S. must not play into the hands of the ruling AKP's current tendency towards demagoguery by taking steps that undermine its secular, military-aligned opposition more than they serve notice on the government.*

While the U.S. must find a mature way to signal its displeasure and the repercussions that should follow Turkey's wayward path, it must avoid walking into the trap Israel did by recklessly precipitating the relationship's current predicament. Lest the U.S. convey acquiescence, however, answer it must.

(* Ed. note: The center-right AKP, or Justice and Development Party, is currently Turkey's dominant political party, with a majority of seats in the Grand National Assembly. Both Prime Minister Erdogan and President Abdullah Gül are AKP.)

Mort Zuckerman gets it wrong

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Canadian American billionaire Mort Zuckerman has a new opinion piece in his U.S. News and World Report in which he claims -- right in the headline -- that the "world sees Obama as incompetent and amateur" in the area of foreign policy.

In an attempt to support his claim, he cites criticism of Obama on a single issue (nuclear weapons) from French President Nicolas Sarkozy (a man fighting for his political life in a country that thrives on populist anti-Americanism), scorn of "a number of Obama's visions" from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (an authoritarian who got along well with Bush), disdain from the Chinese during Obama's first visit there, disappointment and dismay from the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (the authoritarian leader of an oppressive regime that profits off America's dependence on foreign oil), and objections from an unnamed Middle East commentator, an unnamed "renowned Asian leader," "many Arab leaders" (critical of the decision to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a civilian trial), and Leslie Gelb (who says that Obama "gives wonderful speeches" but "might confuse speeches with policy").

In other words, who cares? It's important for Obama to have broad international support for his policies, but criticism from such sources hardly carries much credibility. Furthermore, such criticism must be put in context. It is hardly surprising that Obama's policies would meet with criticism from Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, and various other such sources. Indeed, wouldn't Obama be roundly criticized if his policies met with the approval of Sarkozy, Putin, Abdullah, et al.? Do we really want a president who is (and whose policies are) beloved by what is, Sarkozy and Gelb aside, a collection of authoritarians who have no great love for liberty, democracy, and the American way?

These critics, with their generally limited criticism, hardly amount to "the world." Indeed, as a new Pew Research Center survey found, Obama is actually extremely popular around the world:

[I]n most countries, especially in wealthier nations, President Barack Obama gets an enthusiastic thumbs up for the way he has handled the world economic crisis. The notable exception is the United States itself, where as many disapprove of their president's approach to the global recession as approve. This pattern is indicative of the broader picture of global opinion in 2010. President Barack Obama remains popular in most parts of the world, although his job approval rating in the U.S. has declined sharply since he first took office.

Obama's popularity has declined at home largely, I would argue, as a result of the poor jobs situation (and a relentless Republican opposition that spews propaganda in an attempt to undermine his presidency). Around the world, though, both Obama and the U.S. are popular, with much of the world holding a favourable view of America. The notable exception is much of the Muslim world, where anti-American sentiment still prevails (except in Indonesia). That's hardly Obama's doing, though. America's image has weakened in Mexico, but that's because of Arizona's draconian anti-immigrant law, not Obama.

But that's not all Zuckerman gets wrong. Consider:

The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.

Zuckerman is fairly conservative on anything having to do with Islam and the Middle East, largely because of his pro-Israeli conservatism, so it's hardly surprising that he objects to Obama's more nuanced approach to the war on terror. Obama is right, of course, that America is not at war with the Muslim world. After all, the Muslim world includes Muslim communities in the U.S., along with friendly Muslim states like Jordan, as well as Iraq (the U.S. is still at war there, but it's not at war with Iraq). The fact that some parts of the Muslim world are at war with the U.S., extremist elements that are also at war with much of their own world, doesn't change this. Perhaps Zuckerman wants America to be at war with the Muslim world generally, and perhaps also with Islam as a faith, but the right course of action is one that does not alienate the Muslim world by treating it as a monolithic enemy. Even Bush didn't do that.

I would argue that it is similarly proper to reach out to leaders like Assad. It is much better to engage with them than to treat them like enemies and thereby to push them further away, and together, where they are much more likely to unite in common opposition to America. Even the early attempts to reach out to Iran made sense. Ahmadeinejad has been unwilling to talk in good faith, but the the attempts had to be made, if only to show Obama's willingness to seek peaceful, diplomatic solutions to difficult issues like Iran's nuclear program. And because he reached out to Tehran, and indicated to the world that he wasn't going to pursue military intervention, as some American conservatives recklessly prefer, Obama now has broad international support for sanctions.

On the Iranians who took to the streets, I would just add that they made clear that they didn't want America's direct involvement in their cause. It was clear where Obama stood, and that was with the protesters and with the reform movement generally, but he was right not to signal that support too aggressively, lest the protesters be written off as agents of Americanism. (Furthermore, the Iranian regime is not the same as Islamic jihadism, yet Zuckerman equates the two here.)

To his credit, Zuckerman does acknowledge that "Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well," but far from proving that "the world" finds Obama incompetent and amateurish, his piece simply reflects his own bias against Obama. It's a highly selective and deeply egotistical piece. And it pretty much gets it all wrong.

McCain calls for regime change in Iran. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In theory, I agree with John McCain:

Senator John McCain called on the United States on Thursday to support regime change in Iran, saying that the latest United Nations sanctions are "inadequate" and that it is unrealistic to expect the current government in Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism and cracking down on its own people.

In a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy honoring Iran's dissident Green Movement, Mr. McCain said President Obama's attempt to talk with Tehran has been "defiantly met with a clenched fist" and that the hope that Iran's rulers will finally negotiate in good faith "seems totally at odds with the character of this Iranian regime."

"I believe that it will only be a change in the Iranian regime itself – a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran – that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran's policies," Mr. McCain said. The United States, he said, should "mobilize our friends and allies in like-minded countries" to help the opposition in its challenge to the Tehran government, although he did not specify how that change would be enacted.

Yes, yes, fine. I dislike the Iranian regime, too, and I wish it would be tossed into the dustbin of history. And at least he isn't calling for military action, like his neoconservative pals at The Weekly Standard. But wishing for regime change, wanting it, isn't the same as actually doing something to try to make it happen. And while McCain calls for mobilization of friends and allies and for support to be given to the Iranian opposition, he is notably short on details.

This isn't about changing a pair of pants, after all, it's about changing the regime -- which goes beyond just the current government (which is an expression of the underlying regime, which is deeply entrenched) -- of a significant country in the Middle East, of a significant regional power with an extensive reach beyond its borders, of a nation-state with a large population, a long history, and a powerful ruling establishment rooted in the country's established religion.

Yes, much of the country leans to the West, and there is a vocal opposition movement, but even the more liberal, reform-minded elements, elements that are socio-culturally and perhaps even politically and economically attracted to Americanism, tend to be deeply nationalistic and prideful. Lest we forget, as Amir Farokhi wrote here last year, "Iran's political protesters requested that the U.S. stay out of Iran's political drama," not least because of "the longstanding history of Western interference in Iran's domestic affairs." (And, too, the leader of the Green Movement, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, supports his country's nuclear program.) Pushing regime change -- openly and aggressively, as McCain seems to want -- would likely only succeed in pushing away those who will ultimately be the agents of change, the reformers whose credibility with the Iranian people would be weakened were they to be seen as agents of America.

McCain, as usual, is all talk and no substance, and, in this case, he just doesn't seem to understand Iran at all, articulating a goal without any plan to get there and making comments without any regard for what will actually bring meaningful change to a country that desperately needs it. Thankfully, the man who beat him seems to get it, and, while the Iranian regime remains an intransigent obstacle to peace and stability, Iran is being dealt with in a way that respects the reality of the situation.

Sanctioning Iran, an Obama victory

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The NYT:

The United Nations Security Council leveled its fourth round of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program on Wednesday, but the measures did little to overcome widespread doubts that they -- or even the additional steps pledged by American and European officials -- would accomplish the Council's longstanding goal: halting Iran's production of nuclear fuel.

The new resolution, hailed by President Obama as delivering "the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government," took months to negotiate and major concessions by American officials, but still failed to carry the symbolic weight of a unanimous decision. Twelve of the 15 nations on the Council voted for the measure, while Turkey and Brazil voted against it and Lebanon abstained.

The United States and Europe acknowledged before negotiations started that they would not get the tough sanctions they were hoping for, promising to enact harsher measures on their own once they had the imprimatur of the United Nations. Congress is expected to pass a package of unilateral sanctions against Iran, and European leaders will begin discussing possible measures at a summit meeting next week. 

Sure, the sanctions could have been tougher (and I support targeted sanctions meant to hurt the government and military, though I prefer a mutifaceted approach that combines sanctions with respect for Iran's national pride and support for its more liberal, pro-reform elements), and it's too bad the vote wasn't unanimous, but I think this is a significant victory for Obama, not least to have Russia and China on board. On this, I agree with Yglesias:

[I]t seems to me that the UN Security Council's vote to impose sanctions on Iran counts as a vindication of Barack Obama's view that taking a more conciliatory approach to the world will help get more cooperation from other world powers on American priorities. 

Obama reached out and tried to engage in serious discussions with Iran, but he was firmly rebuffed. Much to his credit, he is now in a position to lead the international community in addressing Iran's nuclear program, as well as Iran's blatant disregard for the authority of the United Nations, not through reckless military action, which the warmongering neocons desire (and which would backfire terribly), but through tough but sensible measures designed to put pressure on Iran's rogue regime.

Iran selected for U.N. Commission on the Status of Women

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is where I don't mind quoting Fox News, because it was right to focus on this appalling development:

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states -- including the United States.

I'm not anti-U.N., I'm really not, but is it any wonder it has a credibility problem? And is it any wonder so many people, in particular in the U.S., consider it a joke, if not something far more malevolent?

How can it possibly justify putting Iran on this commission? Did some countries go along with this because it further undermines the U.N? Or is it just that too many countries don't care? Or that too many countries are, like Iran, anything but liberal and democratic and respectful of women's rights?

Whatever the case, all the U.N. has accomplished with this asinine move is to provide yet more ammunition to its critics.