Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNow comes the hard part.
When I left Tehran early Monday morning, I felt guilty. Guilty because I was leaving behind the faces of the hundreds of people I talked to, met with, had tea with, and interviewed who were backers of the failed presidential campaign of Mir Hossein Mousavi. In their faces, in their eyes, I saw the hope of a new Iran. They told me, passionately, that wanted freedom -- yes, freedom from the requirement of the hijab, but more important, freedom of expression, to speak freely, to have an independent media, to create works of art that don't have to be reviewed by the know-nothings of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
So what's the hard part? The fact that the United States is going to have to talk with the regime of President Ahmadinejad. And not only talk, but make a deal.
The people who wanted change aren't going to get it. The regime is too powerful, and it controls all the levers of power: the army, the police, the Revolutionary Guard and paramilitary groups, thuggish militias, the judiciary and courts, the media, and more. Those who hope that the reformists, including Mousavi, former President Khatami, and cleric Mehdi Karroubi, will support a revolt that makes use of the mass movement against Ahmadinejad will find their hopes dashed.
The Guardian Council and the powers-that-be, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Leader, won't permit the election to be reversed. And they won't allow a popular movement to develop against it, despite the massive outpouring of anger, bitterness and resentment that has led hundreds of thousands of Iranians to gather in Tehran and other cities around the country.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many Iranians I spoke with, the election was absurdly rigged. It's unlikely that they even counted the ballots, in fact, just posted a final number and called it quits. But whether the election was rigged or not, Ahmadinejad will be president of Iran until 2013.
That makes it exceedingly difficult for President Obama. First, it's hard because Ahmadinejad himself is virtually radioactive for American politicians. (As one Iranian told me in Tehran, anticipating that a US-Iran dialogue could start with exchanges between Congress and Iran's Majlis, "Can you imagine Howard Berman [chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee] standing next to Ahmadinejad?") That makes it politically difficult, extremely so in my opinion, for Obama to bring the American body politic and public opinion along on the ride to better US-Iran ties. And second, it will be even more difficult because for the next four years Ahmadinejad will be viewed as an illegitimate president who stole the election. So it's tough to imagine Obama dealing with a president who's bellicose and defiant, on one hand, and a usurper, on the other.
Still, it's got to be done.
From all factions, Iranians in Tehran told me that both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want a deal with the United States. In fact, it is perhaps the one way that they can shore up their position at home, by showing that they can deal with the West. The Iranian leadership knows that Ahmadinejad is radioactive in the United States, and several insiders suggested that the Office of the Supreme Leader wants to create a post of special envoy for talks with the West, and with Obama, so that Ahmadinejad doesn't have to be point man. We'll see.
Part of the problem, from the Iranian side, is that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad seem to have a wildy inflated idea of Iran's power and influence. They mistakenly believe that Iran is dealing with the West from a "position of strength," when in fact Iran is in an extremely vulnerable position: it has no allies, it has a weak and crumbling economy, its oil output is falling, and it is desperately short of needed technology in high-tech, civil aviation, and oil and gas industries. If they really believe that Iran is powerful, even regionally, it could lead Iran's Khamenei-Ahmadinejad axis to overestimate their ability to strike a strong bargain -- in which case, the talks will go nowhere.
On the American side, I think Obama has handled an extremely delicate situation just about right. But he needs to go further, and the best step he could take would be to stop saying that the military option for Iran is "on the table." (In fact, the military option is always on the table, but he doesn't have to say so.) Making threats against Iran just bolsters the hardliners and undermines the pro-democracy movement.
Here, by the way, is the full text of Obama's remarks about Iran yesterday, when he was asked about the civil unrest in Iran and whether or not he is willing "to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions":
Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.
My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren't on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.
Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.
We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.
And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.
Nice touch, the comment about the "youth of Iran."
Right-wingers in the United States are already comparing the Iranian unrest to Hungary, 1956, and calling on the United States to give its full support to the Green Wave. Nothing could be stupider. What they miss is that President Obama's outreach to Iran, including his Cairo speech -- which got a word-by-word exegesis prepared for Khamenei and was widely viewed by many Iranians -- is in part responsible for the sudden upsurge of support for Mousavi. And it happened not because Obama called for military action in Iran, and not because Obama backed Mousavi, but precisely because he didn't. Yes, Obama could go further, by renouncing force in dealing with Iran, and he should. But US meddling in Iranian politics would be counterproductive, to say the least.
At Tehran airport, as I was leaving Iran yesterday morning, I ran into a senior adviser to Karroubi, the reformist candidate and cleric. A few days earlier, I'd met with him in the lobby of a hotel in Tehran to talk about the election. Now, in the aftermath of the election, he was gloomy, saying the Iran's security forces had a list of people to arrest, and they were doing so steadily -- so he was getting out. In his mind, there's no question that the election was bogus. Despite the street protests, he said, there was little that the opposition can do, in the face of the regime's power. Changing Iran, he said, is a long-term project.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Well, here's the advantage to Ahmadinejad...
according to the new "Netanyahu Rule"...
he can offer up something, that he "already knows" is a non-starter for negotiations?
and he's not "lying"! Handy,huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 1:51pm
Well, here's the advantage to Ahmadinejad...
according to the new "Netanyahu Rule"...
he can offer up something, that he "already knows" is a non-starter for negotiations?
and he's not "lying"! Handy,huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 1:51pm
Since you are feeling "clever" Mask, why don't you tell us what kind of nonstarter offer Imanutjob could bring forth?
Especially given that I've thoroughly debunked all of your Arab support legal arguments on the Coup thread.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 2:03pm
Simple, Larry.
Like Netanyahu, Ahmadinejad says "his vision" is of a totally nuclear-free Middle East, including Iran AND Israel.
Like Netanyahu, he knows that "that's not going to happen" because Israel won't agree to nuclear disarmament.
and Like Netanyahu, Ahmadinejad gets to seem magnanimous and open-minded, while all the time lying since he doesn't REALLY have a "vision of a non-nuclear Middle East."
Then, Like Netanyahu's defenders, Iranian clerics defend Ahmadinejad by saying "He's not lying. He's proving a point!"
Simple, huh?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 2:12pm
DREYFUSS: ....I think Obama has handled an extremely delicate situation just about right.
Right you are! Magic has done as much as I have....except his remarks are broadcast by his media.
Say, wouldn't it be really nice, fair and balanced and all, for Obama to beg AhmaDineInYourJeans to take the military option against Israel off the table?
Posted by Happy at 06/16/2009 @ 2:26pm
'Especially given that I've thoroughly debunked all of your Arab support legal arguments on the Coup thread.'
This doesn't mean anything, "antisocialist." The Iranians aren't Arabs. They speak Farsi.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/16/2009 @ 2:29pm
Since the efficacy of rhetorical "sticks" is pretty low, what can we offer in the way of "carrots," rewards that we can dangle in front of possible allies in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan so that they are motivated to steer a more liberal course?
What are the prospects for solar energy in the sunny Middle East, now that the oil is running out? Is there any solar technology that we and our western allies can offer in exchange for some social and political progress?
I'm not saying we should shower that creep Ahmadinejad with gifts. I'm saying that we should offer some solar high-tech goodies to our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan and pointedly exclude Iran until the Ayatollah and his appointees either see the light or fail so miserably, in clear economic terms, that they find themselves deposed.
This might be a more successful strategy than saber-rattling. It might even save money, especially after we bring our troops home.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/16/2009 @ 2:42pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Abbas illegitimate, not to mention King Abdullah and Pharoah Mubarak. Abdullah was in the Oval office just two months ago, mashedi's and all. All the billions we pour into Mubaraks pockets. You got to be kidding me. I think the US has sufficient experience dealing with illegitimate politico's in the region.
Not to mention the legitimacy of any leader of Israel, whose legitimacy if not actuality is very much in question within the region. But of course The Nation was the single most news outlet responsible for the creation of Israel. So I realize its a stretch.
I'm pretty sure Hamas is a legitimate political actor, and for that matter Hezbollah do. Haven't seen Khalid or Nasrallah in the rose garden for a little diplomacy with Bush or O. No No No God Forbid.
How do you like those apples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 2:46pm
Why is the nuclear option always on the table--whether the POTUS publicly states that or not? Has/is Iran threatening to attack the U.S.? I thought it's Israel that's calling for an attack on Iran. And, PUHleez, don't give me that drivel about Ahmadinejad threatening to "wipe Israel off the map." He said no such thing--you can Google and find out a translation of what he did say. It's easy enough.
Posted by lingum at 06/16/2009 @ 2:47pm
I think the major worry should be what Netanyahu and Lieberman are now cooking. If they sense Iran is weak and in a chaotic state, they might decide to strike later this year or early next. Hitler was convinced he could taken down the USSR because of Stalin's purges and the political turmoil they caused. This isn't the same, exact sort of situation happening in Iran, but Tel Aviv might be tempted to hit its #1 foe while it is wounded.
Posted by Communard115 at 06/16/2009 @ 2:50pm
BTW, Larry...this is where that quote of yours will come in handy--
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 2:54pm
Does Rahm get to taxi on AirForce 1 to Tel Aviv in full IDF uni's if it goes down like that?
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 2:55pm
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 06/16/2009 @ 1:44pm
Sounds like you had quite the experience in Tehran!
Posted by syfriendly at 06/16/2009 @ 2:56pm
'Especially given that I've thoroughly debunked all of your Arab support legal arguments on the Coup thread.'
This doesn't mean anything, "antisocialist." The Iranians aren't Arabs. They speak Farsi.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/16/2009 @ 2:29pm
Jakob,
You'r mixing topics. I was letting Mask know that I responded to a question on Israel on another thread.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:01pm
Not to mention the legitimacy of any leader of Israel, whose legitimacy if not actuality is very much in question within the region. But of course The Nation was the single most news outlet responsible for the creation of Israel. So I realize its a stretch.
I'm pretty sure Hamas is a legitimate political actor, and for that matter Hezbollah do. Haven't seen Khalid or Nasrallah in the rose garden for a little diplomacy with Bush or O. No No No God Forbid.
How do you like those apples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person Why is the nuclear option always on the table--whether the POTUS publicly states that or not? Has/is Iran threatening to attack the U.S.? I thought it's Israel that's calling for an attack on Iran. And, PUHleez, don't give me that drivel about Ahmadinejad threatening to "wipe Israel off the map." He said no such thing--you can Google and find out a translation of what he did say. It's easy enough.
Posted by lingum at 06/16/2009 @ 2:47pm
Wow, two jihadist supporters in a row. Someone on electric intifada or similar source must have told them to blog liberal sites.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:03pm
BTW, Larry...this is where that quote of yours will come in handy--
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 2:54pm
Why? I haven't seen any renewed calls for bombing Iran's nuke facilities.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:05pm
Stick to the facts. What did I say that in inaccurate in your opinion. Respectfully.
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 3:06pm
It seems to me like talking to Iran would amount to appeasement--high-level conservatives there are already blaming the protests on "CIA involvement" and "US media meddling", evident from today's crackdown on foreign journalists. Ahmadinejad understands that a large part of his power comes from demonizing the West and manipulating anti-Zionists into supporting him. Even American leftists can be found under his sway--the newsletter CounterPunch seems to be publishing two pro-Ahmadinejad columns for every oppositional viewpoint, and largely ignoring the suppression of freedoms that the regime has perpetrated to get its results. To them, any Western argument reeks of "corporate media meddling", to the point where they will ignore the facts and diagnose the Western media's portrayal as simply "paving the way for war with Iran". The fact of the matter is that Ahmadinejad is a master of using these sentiments to build his power base both domestically and internationally, and any "negotiations" will involve major capitulations to Iran. Obama also vowed to reach across the aisle to Republicans, and have used this to block and debate every policy they can. Perhaps a return to American isolationism is in order--Ahmadinejad, to me, seems intent on using this faux-landslide as a basis for solidifying his power regionally, through nuclear development and possibly regional wars. Any American opposition to these, however reasoned or principled, will be dismissed as imperialism--our long history of meddling in the region had used up all of our political goodwill. Thousands or even millions of people may die on Ahmadinejad's whims, but that is better than a regional war escalating into a world war. Otherwise, this election may be seen as the Reichstag Fire of the 21st century.
Posted by j0j0dah0b0 at 06/16/2009 @ 3:08pm
What are the prospects for solar energy in the sunny Middle East, now that the oil is running out?.....I'm saying that we should offer some solar high-tech goodies to our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan and pointedly exclude Iran...
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/16/2009 @ 2:42pm
"oil is running out" in the ME? You're out of your mind or have turned wishful thinking into your own reality....typical of Magic & his worshippers.
Saudi Arabia & Iraq alone, have over 350 Billion bbls in reserve. ALL of the ME exports ~30 million bbls per day which is about 11 Billion per year.
The fact Iran isn't able to maintain its production is self-inflicted.....as are Iraq and Venezuela...and to a large extent, our very own country.
Only countries that want to throw away money, in order for some to feel good about themselves (your type), will go for solar.....it eats subsidies for breakfast, lunch, dinner and midnight snack.
Speaking of solar energy, today's WSJ, page A11, "In a Small Fish, a Large Lesson in Renewable Energy's Obstacles", some facts are pretty shocking:
"The Bureau of Land Management....has a backlog of more than 200 proposed solar projects, some of which have been waiting several years."
In the southern area of Nevada where dozens of solar-energy projects await approval:
"After reviewing some applications for as long as 18 months, Mr. Putnam's (of the BLM) office hasn't approve any. He says his office hopes to make decisions on at least three by the end of 2010, but that will be a monumental task."
Guess what's hanging these projects up......regulations already on the book that never anticipated how they hamstring the future! Oh, I don't doubt a few fishes or turtles and herbs have been saved....and perhaps some deservedly so!
Posted by Happy at 06/16/2009 @ 3:10pm
Here's an example of the solar-energy projects I referred to in my previous posting:
"Massive European Solar Project Set for Launch"
Look it up at: www.spiegel.de/international/business.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
Stick to the facts. What did I say that in inaccurate in your opinion. Respectfully.
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 3:06pm
How do I count the ways?
How are Israeli elections illegitimate?
Hamas and Hezbollah only exist because their terrorism is funded by Iran. And it seems it is acceptable to you that both exist to see the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
Care to enlighten us how King Abdullah is not the legal monarch of Jordan? He has a treaty agreement with the world to justify it.
You do know that the money to Egypt/Mubarak is because we honor the badly designed Carter Camp David Accord that requires the US to give that money to Egypt and Israel as part of their peace agreement?
The Nation most responsible for the creation of Israel? That one is beyond laughable.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:12pm
Ok, good stuff. But then...
How were the Palestinean elections illegitimate?
Hamas and Hezbollah does not exist because of Iran's support, that 's just not fact. I do not wish harm on any person jew or otherwise, truly. How do you feel about 1000 Gazans dead and gone. Poof. Israel existence is fine with me, but with equal rights for all its citizens even the ones who are palistinean. Problem? Also do you consider the 100 plus dead American soldiers in uniform on the U.S.S. Liberty intentionally attacked by our friends an act of war?
Does Abdullah have as much grass root support than Ahmadinejad with his own constituents, doubt it.
Skipping the Carter deal thing...
That's not what I said, the Nation is the most intricately tied of american news outlets to the creation of Israel, that is just a fact.
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 3:24pm
Wow, two jihadist supporters in a row. Someone on electric intifada or similar source must have told them to blog liberal sites.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:03pm
Come on Lar - these are just words. You said yourself on the previous post that words basically mean nothing because they are often lies or meant for another purpose. So Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier - he just says that to get the anti-Israel vote. He really doesn't mean it right - just as Bibi isn't going to tolerate a two state solution, even though he said he would work toward it. So, whats the harm in talking?
Posted by OneVote at 06/16/2009 @ 3:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:05pm
I can wait...eventually, pyette, abell, sjcher....somebody will "hint" at "an option on the table" about "how to handle Iran".
BTW, what did you think of my Ahmadinejad "lie not a lie" plan? Worked for Bibi, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 3:43pm
I can wait...eventually, pyette, abell, sjcher....somebody will "hint" at "an option on the table" about "how to handle Iran".
BTW, what did you think of my Ahmadinejad "lie not a lie" plan? Worked for Bibi, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 3:43pm
pretty weak argument. hypothetically, you could get both countries to agree. However, there is a huge difference between that and countries surrounding you who refuse to let you even exist. Imanutjob and Iran do not face a similar threat.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:51pm
Here's a thought. How about we stay the hell out Irans political theater for awhile? If, by their own government standards, the recount is valid, then he's their valid president. Or do you think we should have had Iran doing the recounting in Florida in 2000?
We are not the world police nor are we big brother. We are one country living amongst other countries.
How many Iranians were responsible for 9/11? None! How many Saudi's were responsible for 9/11? Are we trying to tell Saudi Arabia how to run their country?
We need to step back, take a breath, and pull our heads out. This country is in trouble and we don't need to go around putting out fires all over the world when our country is on fire.
Let Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and Iraq solve their own problems. Perhaps the Europeans can step in if a horrible wrong is going on.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The person you are attempting to communicate with there is an absolutely demented religious fanatic who also hates Arabs, wants to see war on Iran, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc. It's your time to waste on talking at him.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/16/2009 @ 4:07pm
Well thanks and I'm sorry for wasting anyone's time.
Posted by a_bakr at 06/16/2009 @ 4:14pm
Let Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and Iraq solve their own problems. Perhaps the Europeans can step in if a horrible wrong is going on.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
I thought I'd expand on this last point. North Korea isn't and won't be a problem. Unless China gives them the go ahead to attack someone (which China won't) North Korea won't do anything with their new toys they've created. How did someone phrase it, "owning nuclear warheads pretty much neuters the country owning the weapons." North Korea is China's problem, not ours. They are in China's back yard.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 4:16pm
Don't go there! Please, no invasion of Iran, no drones, no spies sent over to incite, no exploding cigars, no dirty tricks.
We got enough on our plate without meddling in other people's affairs.
Americans seem to get a charge about being the agent for freedom and democracy in the world. ("But not in my backyard")
Maybe it's because we feel guilty about killing off our indigenous population and bringing in 10 million slaves to do the heavy lifting or the wars that got us California, Cuba and the Philippines.
We were supposed to be a shining light, a city on the hill for all the world to admire our goodness, according to our early Puritan settlers. But, alas, we fell short.
So we tell the world how to act right: no nukes for Iran and North Korea ,yet nukes for Israel and India; free and fair elections for Iran , yet we don't respect the outcomes when Hamas wins in a free and fair election.
So, Americans, how about a new ethic: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
Posted by hkaplan at 06/16/2009 @ 4:50pm
Here's a great piece in Al Jazeera (I can smell the smoke from antisocialist's short-circuiting brain from here) by an Iranian writer on the election. (I can't seem to post the link for some reason) The parallels to America are amazing. Whether or not the election was stolen is really almost irrelevant compared to the fact that the Iranian left is fed up and ain't gonna take it much longer. It's taken Americans 9 years to wrestle any semblance of control from judeo-christian fundamentalist fruitcakes, but it might not take Iran so long to do the same. Their left seems to have something called "courage." (.....ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth....)
The other great point the writer makes is that Mousavi, a right-winger ten years ago, has been forced by the left to adopt some reasonably sane positions. If he had been elected, for all we know he'd have pulled an Obama and reneged on many or most of his campaign promises in the interest of "pragmatism."
Posted by DejaVu at 06/16/2009 @ 4:53pm
Posted by DejaVu at 06/16/2009 @ 4:53pm
ROFL
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by Happy at 06/16/2009 @ 3:10pm
"'oil is running out' in the ME?"
It's called peak oil. The ceiling of oil production has been reached globally, just as it had in the late 1960s in the U.S. back when we used to be a net oil exporter.
If you have a basic knowledge of economics, then you know what happens when you have increasing demand coupled with a reduction in supply - significant price increases that will drive suppliers to previously unprofitable resources and buyers to substitutes. Given our society is heavily dependent on cheap fossil fuels, it poses serious structural problems when fossil fuels are no longer cheap and there are no substitutes - particularly because of problems of infrastructure and the like.
Even if we use your numbers and assume a steady state of ME production, you are talking 31 years of reserve. You think we are ready to transition off of fossil fuels in that amount of time?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 5:04pm
Sorry antisocialist, I apologize. Anyway, the writer is Azar Nafisi in Al Jazeera and it really is worth reading.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/16/2009 @ 5:12pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/16/2009 @ 5:12pm
Even the most rosy estimates place peak oil around 2020. Cheap oil will likely be a dim memory by the end of the century.
I think it is safer to operate on the assumption of the bleaker hypothesis that it has already occurred. Look at what happened to markets when the U.S. moved from an net exporter to net importer, and you'll notice a lot of similarities with the current environment.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 5:37pm
We need to step back, take a breath, and pull our heads out.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm with ya, Wolfie. But I advise "step back, pull our heads out, THEN take a deep breath!"
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/16/2009 @ 5:41pm
Mr. Dreyfuss says:
".....So what's the hard part? The fact that the United States is going to have to talk with the regime of President Ahmadinejad. And not only talk, but make a deal. ...."
I don't know what would be hard about a conversation/deal with Ahmadinejad. It would be quite simple, really, if the next president of the United States were president today.
Here is how the conversation would go:
"Lookie here, Ahmadinejad, you need to understand you will not have a nuclear weapon and you will stop promoting terrorism .......if you continue working towards either or both you betcha we will bomb your ass to prevent it. Do we have a deal or do we have to bomb? Deal or bomb? Up to you."
(Note: I am poking a little bit of fun, through the way I phrased things above, at the next U.S. President, but only in fun because she would do the right thing and she is the most capable for the job and would solve the problem and is worthy of our admiration, which she will of course not get from libs on The Nation)
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 5:45pm
I had reservations about making my 5:45 pm post above, because as I was scrolling through the posts to get to the input form at the bottom I came across this:
=====================
I can wait...eventually, pyette, abell, sjcher....somebody will "hint" at "an option on the table" about "how to handle Iran".
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009
=====================
Thus I had to decide, do I forget about making my comment, or do I post anyway knowing that by doing so Mask will have successfully predicted my behavior!
I decided to say what I intended to say anyway, so go ahead Mask and gloat.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 5:50pm
Wolfgang1,
You said (about North Korea and nukes) "....North Korea won't do anything with their new toys they've created....."
The problem is, and this is seperate from any question of politics or ideological belief.....from all descriptions of him the wingnut running North Korea seems to have a screw loose. His elevator does not go to the top floor, if you will.
Most of the evil dictators in world history were not scatterbrains and wingnuts, but instead were cold, calculating people who developed strategy to further their goals.
But it seems that over the years there have been various descriptions of Kim Jong-il that protray him as someone who is certifiably nuts.
I think his behavior is a bit unpredictable and because of this he may do things that any other hard line communist would not necessarily do.
Back when the Soviet Union existed, although they wanted to dominate us and eventually establish world communism they were not willing to die in the process (unlike the Islamofacists of today)......that would have defeated the purpose of what they were doing.
Today, many of the Islamofascists actually want to die as martyrs.
But with Kim Jong-il, nobody knows what is in his mind, he probably has no clue himself.
Thus, he could haul off and lash out and use his nukes for no apparent reason even though it would mean his, and his country's ultimate destruction.
There is an element of unpredictablity in what he could do, I don't think you can assume he would not do that (use his nukes).....even though a different North Korean communist dictator who was not a wingnut besides would probably not do those things so quickly.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 6:06pm
"Lookie here, Ahmadinejad, you need to understand you will not have a nuclear weapon and you will stop promoting terrorism .......if you continue working towards either or both you betcha we will bomb your ass to prevent it. Do we have a deal or do we have to bomb? Deal or bomb? Up to you."
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You really ready to see this through Chermak? Ahmadinejad all smiles with Medvedev today.
'Russia welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday on his first trip abroad since his bitterly disputed re-election, a show of support for a leader facing massive protests at home and questions from the West about the legitimacy of the vote count
Ahmadinejad arrived in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg and sat down for talks at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, China and four Central Asian nations. Iran has observer status in the grouping, widely seen as a counterbalance to U.S. interest in the region.
A senior Russian diplomat hailed Ahmadinejad's visit as evidence of strong ties between Russia and Iran.
"It's quite symbolic that the Iranian president arrived in Russia on his first foreign visit since re-election," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said at a briefing. "We see that as a sign that the Russian-Iranian relations will advance further."
Ryabkov said the election was Iran's internal affair, but he endorsed Ahmadinejad as the victor.
"We welcome the fact that the elections have taken place, and we welcome the newly re-elected Iranian president on the Russian soil," he said. "We see this visit as a reflection of partner-like, neighborly and traditionally friendly relations between Moscow and Tehran."'
Posted by OneVote at 06/16/2009 @ 6:17pm
cite to above:
Russia welcomes Ahmadinejad By (AP) Published: 2009-06-16 01:20:05 Location: YEKATERINBURG, Russia Excerpt: SouthernLedger.com
Posted by OneVote at 06/16/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 3:51pm
Really, Larry????
Israel COULD agree to disarm their nuclear weapons???
Or is it an IDENTICAL scenario, by which Ahmadinejad could propose a phoney offer...as Netanyahu did...and you COULDN'T call it "lying".
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:34pm
It is ironic that the same hypocrites, who are lamenting the erosion of liberty in Iran, have forgotten that the US had aborted the first Iranian experiment in Democracy. In 1953 our CIA was instrumental in toppling the first democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran; Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq.
One can agree that Ahmadinejad is loose cannon; but his misdeeds pales in comparison with hardcore war criminals like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Arial Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, or Shimon Peres. The criminal deeds of these criminals are numerous; while Nejad's is hardly responsible for killing or invading anyone.
Ahmadinejad's cardinal sin is his verbal attack on Zionism; which is a forbidden taboo in our modern political discourse. If Ahmadinejad to begin praising Israel tomorrow, he will become our esteemed ally. After all, we have engaged and embraced much worse dictators before.
We are, as we speak, embracing an Apartheid state (Israel) which has been responsible for murdering and the destitution of millions of innocent Palestinians. We roll the red carpet for the criminal Israeli leaders as they murder Palestinians and occupy their land.
What is happening in Iran is strictly an Iranian internal matter; we have no business sticking our nose in there. Our credibility as the guardian of democracy in the world has been eroded. The killing fields we left behind in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have muddied our moral authority. Our blind support for the Israeli apartheid has tarnished our values.
A nation that has succumbed to the tyranny of the Patriot Act and the wiretap of its citizens is in no position to lecture others on the virtue of freedom.
Posted by CripThink at 06/16/2009 @ 6:38pm
Especially given that I've thoroughly debunked all of your Arab support legal arguments on the Coup thread.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 2:03pm
Your argument about UN Resolution 181, is that because it is not enforceable, it is of no consequence. That's like a criminal arguing that a mistrial is proof of his innocence.
The fact that 242 does is exist is proof that the international consensus about Israel' occupation, is that it is acting and has done so since 1967.
Tell me antisocialist , when you pray to God, do you only ask for forgiveness for the sins that you've been caught doing?
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 7:14pm
Especially given that I've thoroughly debunked all of your Arab support legal arguments on the Coup thread.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 2:03pm
Your argument about UN Resolution 181, is that because it is not enforceable, it is of no consequence. That's like a criminal arguing that a mistrial is proof of his innocence.
The fact that 242 does is exist is proof that the international consensus about Israel' occupation, is that it is acting and has done so since 1967.
Tell me antisocialist , when you pray to God, do you only ask for forgiveness for the sins that you've been caught doing?
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 7:16pm
It is ironic that the same hypocrites, who are lamenting the erosion of liberty in Iran, have forgotten that the US had aborted the first Iranian experiment in Democracy.
Posted by CripThink at 06/16/2009 @ 6:38pm
It's also ironic that the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People -- are the have suddenly discovered a new found concern for the freedoms and human rights of Iranian people.
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 7:19pm
Your argument about UN Resolution 181, is that because it is not enforceable, it is of no consequence. That's like a criminal arguing that a mistrial is proof of his innocence.
The fact that 242 does is exist is proof that the international consensus about Israel' occupation, is that it is acting and has done so since 1967.
Tell me antisocialist , when you pray to God, do you only ask for forgiveness for the sins that you've been caught doing?
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 7:14pm
Nonsense. When the Congress passes a resolution praising someone or even voicing support for a govt, it has no weight of law. It is meaningless.
Likewise, both 181 and 242 have no weight of enforcement. They are RECOMMENDATIONS. They have no meaning in international law.
So the fact that the arab countries along with communist nations comes out with a resolution which calls for surrender to the Arabs is of absolutely no meaning or consequence to Israel nor should it be.
Perhaps instead of reading anti-semite webpages and listening to pro-jihadist propaganda, you ought to read up on international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
Perhaps instead of reading anti-semite webpages and listening to pro-jihadist propaganda, you ought to read up on international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
Rubbish.
Since when has Israel shown any adherence to international law?
The International Court of Justice ruled the West Bank wall was illegal.
Israel ignored the ruling.
Immediately after the 1967 war, the Israeli government was informed by its highest legal authority, Teodor Meron, that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the foundation of international humanitarian law.
Israel ignored Meron's advice.
Israel's Justice Minister concurred. The World Court unanimously endorsed the essential conclusion in 2004, and the Israeli High Court technically agreed while disagreeing in practice, in its usual style.
This is main stream information and has nothing to do with anti-semite webpages and listening to pro-jihadist propaganda.
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 8:08pm
Perhaps instead of reading anti-semite webpages and listening to pro-jihadist propaganda, you ought to read up on international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
Rubbish.
Since when has Israel shown any adherence to international law?
The International Court of Justice ruled the West Bank wall was illegal.
Israel ignored the ruling.
Immediately after the 1967 war, the Israeli government was informed by its highest legal authority, Teodor Meron, that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the foundation of international humanitarian law.
Israel ignored Meron's advice.
Israel's Justice Minister concurred. The World Court unanimously endorsed the essential conclusion in 2004, and the Israeli High Court technically agreed while disagreeing in practice, in its usual style.
This is main stream information and has nothing to do with anti-semite webpages and listening to pro-jihadist propaganda.
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 8:08pm
>>>Yes, Obama could go further, by renouncing force in dealing with Iran, and he should.<<<
I am not sure taking the military option off the table is wise given the "explicit" threats Ahmadinejad has made against the state of Israel.
In fact, I think the same deterrent we have in place in Europe against the old Soviet Union could work against Iran if they knew "explicitly" that their country would be wiped off the map if they attempted to use nukes against Israel.
Using deterrence in this way could lead to Israel feeling safer about joining the non-proliferation family of nations and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Why does Israel need nukes if the US or the international community can deter their adversaries?
I agree that at some point in the future, this deterrent mechanism should be controlled by an "international" force, so that no country can be singled out and used for political gain.
Also, as Israel solves the Palestinian conflict and seizes the opportunity and initiative to develop Palestine and use this economic development and prosperity as an example to the rest of the Muslim world of their commitment to live in peace and brotherhood, tensions will diminish considerably, obviating the need for military options all together.
We must approach the Middle East holistically, with a roadmap that leads to a nuclear free region and economic development for the benefit of all.
Focusing too much on personalities or Iran does not move us down this roadmap.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/16/2009 @ 8:40pm
Metteyya,
Firstly, Iran has not made "explicit" threats against the state of Israel. That lie has been long since debunked. Secondly, it's safe to say that the Iranians are well aware that their country would be wiped off the map if they attempted to use nukes against Israel. Of course, Iran has no nukes, nor is there any evidence they are perusing them.
Israelis on the whole, feel safe already. Most Israelis could live with a nuclear Iran: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55D0DR20090614
Israel will never give up her nukes, because they will never allow their security (read hegemony) to be outsources to anyone, including her allies.
I agree with the rest of your post however.
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 8:47pm
I am very dissatisfied with The Nation article. The author of this article joined to the opinion to the current political elite. The Iranian people chosen Ahmadinejad for their president by 62.5% of the votes! What is this if not the will of the majority of the people! Do we like or not, but this is the result of the democracy!
Posted by Csaba01 at 06/16/2009 @ 8:52pm
Do we like or not, but this is the result of the democracy!
Posted by Csaba01 at 06/16/2009 @ 8:52pm
I would be inclined to agree were it not for the fact that Juan Cole believes the election was indeed rigged.
Why did Khamanei 1) Congratulate Ahmedenijad on his victory before the legal 3 days were up? 2) Authorize the Council to examine disputed ballot regions? 3) NOT authorize a full recount? 4) NOT stand firm on his assertion that Ahmedenijad won by a landslide?
Of course then there is: Why did Ahmedenijad complain bitterly that Jews and Hitler were behind his defeat before the polls opened?
Didn't HE, as President, have access to the BEST polling data available in Iran?
If there were as many blatant discrepancies in ANYTHING in the US you'd be screaming "Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy!"
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 9:04pm
Shingo,
You say ".......Secondly, it's safe to say that the Iranians are well aware that their country would be wiped off the map if they attempted to use nukes against Israel......"
That is fascinating...how exactly are they aware of this?
In case you have been taking a long nap, are you aware that Barack Obama is President of the United States?
During last years primary campaigns, this subject came up.
One of the Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton, said that if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, there would be no more Iran.
Her opponent, Barack Obama, babbled something along the lines of how that kind of rhetoric or thinking was not "helpful".....he of course wants to go and have "dialogue" with the president of Iran.
Now, God forbid I should find myself ever defending anything either of the Clintons or any other Clinton people do now or ever have done.........but in this case I do have to admit Hillary gave the correct answer.......I have to admit that I am actually doing this......saying something one of the Clintons did or said was right.
And I am only doing this to point out you have no idea what you are talking about.
So again, since I have done the unthinkable (agreed with a Clinton).....I have to ask you again....you say that the Iranians KNOW if they attack Israel with a nuke Iran will be destroyed....BUT.......since Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton is President of the United States.........just how exactly do the Iranian people KNOW this?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 9:09pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 9:09pm
It's not fascinating at all. How could Iran not be aware of the consequences of attacking Israel? Hillary Clinton has just stated that the US would flatten Iran if it attacked Israel and Obama has said he would defend Israel http://tinyurl.com/prponx
Now seeing as she is part of the Obama administration, her statement represents current US policy.
Of course, Israel has 200 nukes to choose from and a far superior military, so why the Us should have to defend Israel is beyond me, especially given hat Iran has no nukes anyway.
Clinton went further by suggesting that a pre-emptive strike was not off the stable either: http://tinyurl.com/l7vq85
Again, I point out that this statement was made as Secretary of State.
Let me educate you a little more:
"U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran. " http://tinyurl.com/5so2jy
No need to thank me sjchermak. I am always glad to assist an ignoramus like yourself.
BTW. Sjchermak. Six months have passed since Obama was sworn in. Did you get stuck on a remote island during that time?
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 9:28pm
I have to laugh when some have the holier than thou chutzpah to judge about the legitimacy of the elections of any other country, including that of Hamas, when we have a valuable Supreme Court Justice, David Souter, resigning clearly because of disgust with the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. And after the crimes of the Bush administration, we have no moral authority whatsoever. Obama is showing enough indication that a reversal will not occur, particularly when there is evidence that torture is still continuing.
Posted by mystic at 06/16/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 7:42pm
Speaking of international Law, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post dug up a 1979 State Department memo that says that the Israeli settlements violate international law. The legal opinion has never been contradicted, says its author.
http://tinyurl.com/l674oc
Resolution 242 includes not calls for surrender to the Arabs.
It appears that you are the one who ought to read up on international law.
Game, set and match!!
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 10:34pm
It's also ironic that the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People -- are the have suddenly discovered a new found concern for the freedoms and human rights of Iranian people.
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 7:19pm
Also ironic that Israel wants to overthrow a holocaust denier but forgets its own denial of Armernian holocaust at the hands of the Turks. Israel didn't want to recognize the historical genocide of Armenians because they wanted to cultivate favor with Turkey for political and economic reasons.
Posted by OneVote at 06/16/2009 @ 10:45pm
Also ironic that Israel wants to overthrow a holocaust denier but forgets its own denial of Armernian holocaust at the hands of the Turks.
Posted by OneVote at 06/16/2009 @ 10:45pm
Maybe, maybe not. Neocons like Daniel Pipes and Michael Ruben have said they woudl vote for Ahmadinejad.
It was reported in The Australia, the Israeli strategists would also prefer Ahmadinejad to win.
http://tinyurl.com/n5bme7
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 10:51pm
Its a tough decision and the cause of considerable derision with much empty-suited meaningless rhetoric. However much it hurts we must decide whether to ROFL til the tears flow considering the Obamanation that makes desolations handling of Iran or N. Korea nuclear testing!!!!
I choose N. Korea and jim jang jum jong jingaling thumbing his nose at the empty suited Obamanation that makes desolation of his own nation!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 11:48pm
I often enjoy & admire Mr. Dreyfuss' work, but not this time.
Iran just hit one of those pivotal moments in history that change everything. The huge split between the State and the Citizen was suddenly made open and obvious to all, especially within Iran. Dreyfuss errs as he takes a slice of the present, from which he predicts that the Iranian status quo will continue. It will not. To the contrary, the people (and growing numbers in the military, clergy, and elsewhere), realize that their State's leaders are the problem, not the solution. And when your people feel like that, the State can never survive intact.
The USSR suffered a similar problem, yet it managed a very soft landing during its collapse. Millions could have died; only several hundred did. If only the same were true in Iran, when Ayatollahs' storm troopers are already shooting innocents in the street.
Other revolutions have faired badly. Zimbabwe vs. South Africa is a prime example of how, or more importantly, how not to change.
The best thing the US can do is support the Iranian students and other intellectuals, but personally, and not as a country. Dreyfuss will be surprised just how deep and strong the people's movement in Iran is. Other than Tweeter and other forms of support, the best thing we can do is cooperate with others in the region, insuring that Iran's theocracy's collapse will be as soft as the USSR's.
(Say, Israel? you take one aggressive step against Iran now, and our relationship is gone. For good. Should I repeat that more slowly?)
Posted by AGNOSTIC at 06/17/2009 @ 12:06am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/16/2009 @ 11:48pm
Never one to give up the opportunity to soil himself in public.
Pat Buchnan just said that he applauds the way Obama has handled Iran:
"Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran's right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument -- that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran's defense."
As for North Korea, peharps while you were experimenting with lithium, you missed the fact that N. Korea tested a nuke when Bush was in power.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 12:12am
Posted by AGNOSTIC at 06/17/2009 @ 12:06am
One hopes you are right and that a revolution really is taking place in Iran, but it is not a foregone conclusion. We only just witnessed the anniversary of Tianamen Square, when a similar revolution was crushed and the status quo was maintained.
Anyway, I am with you in hoping for a soft landing.
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 12:16am
But I advise "step back, pull our heads out, THEN take a deep breath!"
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/16/2009 @ 5:41pm
Good Point!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 06:21am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/16/2009 @ 5:50pm
No,no, SJ...not about gloating.
It's about Sun Tzu.
"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment -- that which they cannot anticipate."---"The Art of War"
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 08:23am
It was reported in The Australia, the Israeli strategists would also prefer Ahmadinejad to win.
http://tinyurl.com/n5bme7
Posted by Shingo at 06/16/2009 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah....yes. Moderation would be bad for the "effort" wouldn't it. Maintaining nuclear hegemony is the end game, and anti-Zionism and holocaust denial is just the window dressing. The irony is in the "window dressing."
Posted by OneVote at 06/17/2009 @ 08:48am
Rattling the Cage: Playing politics with genocide
By LARRY DERFNER
Jerusalem Post - Excerpt
Apr. 21, 2005 1:52 | Updated Apr. 21, 2005 6:45
"And the world stood silent." This is oneof the most indelible Jewish memories of the Holocaust, and one of our mostbitter accusations.
On Sunday, in the Armenian capital of Yerevan, the90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide - the slaughter of at least 1 million Armenian civilians by the Turkish Ottoman regime - will be memorialized.
What does the State of Israel and many of its American Jewish lobbyists have to say about it, about this first genocide ofthe 20th century? If they were merely standing silent, that would be an improvement. Instead, on the subject of the Armenian genocide, Israel and some US Jewish organizations, notably the American Jewish Committee, have for many years acted aggressively as silencers. In Israel, attempts to broadcast documentaries about the genocide on state-run television have been aborted. Aprogram to teach the genocide in public schools was watered down to the pointthat history teachers refused to teach it.
In the US Congress, resolutions to recognize thegenocide and the Ottoman Turks' responsibility for it have been snuffed out by Turkey and its right-hand man on this issue, the Israel lobby.
Jeshajahu Weinberg, founding director of the USHolocaust Museum, wrote that when Armenians lobbied to show the genocide in themuseum, Turkey and Israel counter-lobbied to keep out any trace of it....
Posted by OneVote at 06/17/2009 @ 08:59am
Can you please give some indication of what percentages a fair election might've yielded? I can't help but think that Ahmadinejad would've won either way.
If a country's majority wants to vote away its scraps of democracy, do they have that right?
Those professing faith in an authoritarian-anthropomorphic-absolute (however logically irreconcilable those descriptives) must place said deity's predilections above and beyond so-called humanity's whims. Can such thinking ever be brought into good relation to democracy?
While there are metaphysics that reconcile the paradox of absolute being and relative liberty, these aren't typically what current cultures are dealing with.
Those foolish enough to identify with free thought and open expression may yet often feel truncheon or bomb, for culture too frequently remains immortal Terror's whirlwind-toady.
Posted by ormand at 06/17/2009 @ 09:49am