So...a day later, are we any more optimistic today that this ends well in Iran? Anybody have thoughts on Obama's rather careful comment on the situation?
Optimism: I'm mildly optimistic this won't peter out. A lot of people seem to be angry.
IMO 2 things--the ayatollah affirming the results that night rather than 5 days later following several other steps, and the very low results where candidates previously did well (see 538 for lots of numbers)--make it clear the regime tried to fix this, and that's evident for Iranians to see. I think the most likely real result would have been a runoff between Mousavi and Achmedinijad, and I guess they thought they might lose that. Of course, going with the real results of this election and then fixing that one would have made more sense....but so would lots of other better election fixing. Whomever one voted for in Iran, people don't want to feel that they're just putting on a show and the ayatollah gets to make up his own numbers. Even A'mad voters have reason to be suspicious.
Obama's careful comment: Liked it. He didn't make any promises or threats. (Contrast McCain's "We are all Georgians now" which he could back up with....nada.) He did not say anything that A'mad could turn into "the protesters are agents of the American government," which was the worst possible outcome and why it pays to measure one's words very, very carefully in any international crisis. He rightly put the focus on the Iranians as an inspiration for the world, not on how the US feels about it from our armchair.
Remember the Somali pirates? Waited, assessed, gave power to the commander on the ground to find his moment, and the US rescued our hostage alive. Meanwhile on the right there was a lot of whining about how not talking tough and sending in a strike force first thing made us look weak. Sure, technically that would likely have resulted in the death of the hostage and of our soldiers, but what does that matter when one can raise a beer from the arm of one's chair and shout "Hell ya, bring it on!"
For that matter, remember the invasion of Iraq, where there was lots of tough talk followed by "yo, we have to run the country after taking over? who knew? completely unforeseen....well, no rush to restore order...that part's boring. USA! USA!"
Less talk. More results. No threats or promises that will be shown to be empty. Counter that, no threats or promises that drag us into another war so we don't lose face. Right now all the results are in the hands of the Iranian people, and our job is to let them decide who will be governing. Sending a message that we find the election results as dubious as the rest of the world is good; sending a message that we, from our armchairs, know just what people in Iran should do next, is not.
I'm still anxious as hell. Ahmedinedjad decision to go ahead and visit Russia could be crucial as either a daring show of confidence that will halt the protest's momentum or a classic bit of overreach. Either way, it's a hellacious gamble. The decision to go ahead and recount the vote seems to have been met with a great deal of skepticism. But again, how much of an impact will that decision actually have? Of course, nothing may come of either decision. The situation seems to be very, very fluid. I'm still hopeful, but it appears it all depends on how much each side is ready and willing to endure. I'm wondering if and when fatigue will set in among the general populace. If the powers that be can start chipping away at the coalition of protestors, that will likely be the beginning of the end. I also hope that Western governments (to include Israel) are smart to keep quiet and keep out of this. I think that any overt support for Mousavi and/or a recount will hand Khameni the ammunition he needs to sink the opposition. Still, I retain a small degree of hope.
Based on what Ahmadinejad has said at that conference - the "end of empires" and evils of capitalism and whatnot - it really does sound like he is trying as hard as he can to bait the West into getting involved, so he can do just what you're saying: use it against the opposition. Just imagine if McCain were president instead. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that we would be announcing the deployment of troops into Iran because of what's happening now, in the next few weeks if not already.
Oh, don't say scary stuff like that! :) Seriously, if it were President Palin I truly have no idea what mess the WH would be getting this country into.
Obama has to be very careful about the iranian situation, if he is too pro-mousavi, the mullah will use that to crush the young people there. Calm, and steady will win it.
The good news is that Drudge has his priorities straight. All morning long, the giant banner headline is about ABC doing some kind of stupid NBC-style day at the White House.
A debatable side note - I think the amount of media that has come out of this has probably shifted the consciousness of what Iran is like, its current character. When it was characterized as part of the axis of evil, that it was a totalitarian regime, I imagined a nation of dead-eyed, uniform-thinking, mud-hut dwellers living a third-world existence. Obviously backward, fully controlled, luddite society. I regret my prejudices and am very impressed by the passions and philosophies of a young-hearted society. Not to mention hip and good-looking and tech savvy. It's regrettable that we get to know them through this event.
I think that this event's ability to change perceptions of Iran in the West is one of it's most powerful aspects. I think it highly unlikely that the results will be reversed, but I do think that there are several possible good outcomes. 1) I think the Ahmedinedjad's executive will be weaker. Both in terms of deepening the struggle evident in the internal politics (agitating the domestic split between Iranian governing bodies - supreme leader, governing councils, military, office of the president - see reza aslan's commentary on cnn and the daily beast as well as all of sullivan's excellent links to resources on internal government structure and political dynamics). 2) I think that if protests are sustained, citizens in Western countries will give their leaders more leway to use diplomacy. Citizens of the West may come to believe that it is not Iran that is inherently flawed, but the leadership. And leadership can change. Not to mention the fact that weak leaders in a diffuse power structure are often easier to negotiate with because they have so much to lose and are not sure who has their back. That means they need more of something (many things) to sure up their position and continue their existence so, outside parties have more they can offer. More options on the table with Iran is a good thing.
So what do we think of the Republican party's determination to escape its doldrums with the mastery of new media and an appeal to young black and Latino people, versus its series of "yes our elected people employ unsubtle racists who can't master e-mail or twitter" scandalettes?
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
morning, did anyone catch that doc last night on PBS?
http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_mosque.html
So...a day later, are we any more optimistic today that this ends well in Iran? Anybody have thoughts on Obama's rather careful comment on the situation?
Optimism: I'm mildly optimistic this won't peter out. A lot of people seem to be angry.
IMO 2 things--the ayatollah affirming the results that night rather than 5 days later following several other steps, and the very low results where candidates previously did well (see 538 for lots of numbers)--make it clear the regime tried to fix this, and that's evident for Iranians to see. I think the most likely real result would have been a runoff between Mousavi and Achmedinijad, and I guess they thought they might lose that. Of course, going with the real results of this election and then fixing that one would have made more sense....but so would lots of other better election fixing. Whomever one voted for in Iran, people don't want to feel that they're just putting on a show and the ayatollah gets to make up his own numbers. Even A'mad voters have reason to be suspicious.
Obama's careful comment: Liked it. He didn't make any promises or threats. (Contrast McCain's "We are all Georgians now" which he could back up with....nada.) He did not say anything that A'mad could turn into "the protesters are agents of the American government," which was the worst possible outcome and why it pays to measure one's words very, very carefully in any international crisis. He rightly put the focus on the Iranians as an inspiration for the world, not on how the US feels about it from our armchair.
Remember the Somali pirates? Waited, assessed, gave power to the commander on the ground to find his moment, and the US rescued our hostage alive. Meanwhile on the right there was a lot of whining about how not talking tough and sending in a strike force first thing made us look weak. Sure, technically that would likely have resulted in the death of the hostage and of our soldiers, but what does that matter when one can raise a beer from the arm of one's chair and shout "Hell ya, bring it on!"
For that matter, remember the invasion of Iraq, where there was lots of tough talk followed by "yo, we have to run the country after taking over? who knew? completely unforeseen....well, no rush to restore order...that part's boring. USA! USA!"
Less talk. More results. No threats or promises that will be shown to be empty. Counter that, no threats or promises that drag us into another war so we don't lose face. Right now all the results are in the hands of the Iranian people, and our job is to let them decide who will be governing. Sending a message that we find the election results as dubious as the rest of the world is good; sending a message that we, from our armchairs, know just what people in Iran should do next, is not.
Unfortunately Obama could not find an appropriate Beach Boys song to mock up for the event. I have a few suggestions for him.
Help Me, Ronda, I`m being beaten by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps .
God Only Knows, WTF is going on in Achmedinijad's brain
Fun, Fun Fun, till the Supreme Ruler took the election away.
Be True to Your School, until your dorm gets shot up, then get the hell out of there.
I'm still anxious as hell. Ahmedinedjad decision to go ahead and visit Russia could be crucial as either a daring show of confidence that will halt the protest's momentum or a classic bit of overreach. Either way, it's a hellacious gamble. The decision to go ahead and recount the vote seems to have been met with a great deal of skepticism. But again, how much of an impact will that decision actually have? Of course, nothing may come of either decision. The situation seems to be very, very fluid. I'm still hopeful, but it appears it all depends on how much each side is ready and willing to endure. I'm wondering if and when fatigue will set in among the general populace. If the powers that be can start chipping away at the coalition of protestors, that will likely be the beginning of the end. I also hope that Western governments (to include Israel) are smart to keep quiet and keep out of this. I think that any overt support for Mousavi and/or a recount will hand Khameni the ammunition he needs to sink the opposition. Still, I retain a small degree of hope.
Based on what Ahmadinejad has said at that conference - the "end of empires" and evils of capitalism and whatnot - it really does sound like he is trying as hard as he can to bait the West into getting involved, so he can do just what you're saying: use it against the opposition. Just imagine if McCain were president instead. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that we would be announcing the deployment of troops into Iran because of what's happening now, in the next few weeks if not already.
I tend to think it's more likely that McCain would talk big, and then watch as the throngs of Iranians he supported were mowed down.
You raise an interesting point though, what if it had been Vice President Sarah Palin on Meet the Press the other day?
She'd have to carry on simultaneous fueds with Achmadinejad and Letterman; the mind boggles.
Oh, don't say scary stuff like that! :) Seriously, if it were President Palin I truly have no idea what mess the WH would be getting this country into.
"Oh boy, that Ahmadinnerjacket is pretty pathetic"
Addendum: apparently Iran's state-controlled media is doing exactly that with their most willing player, Fox News. The link is on Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/16/743044/-Iran-state-TV-using-Fox-News-footage-for-propaganda
Obama has to be very careful about the iranian situation, if he is too pro-mousavi, the mullah will use that to crush the young people there. Calm, and steady will win it.
The good news is that Drudge has his priorities straight. All morning long, the giant banner headline is about ABC doing some kind of stupid NBC-style day at the White House.
A debatable side note - I think the amount of media that has come out of this has probably shifted the consciousness of what Iran is like, its current character. When it was characterized as part of the axis of evil, that it was a totalitarian regime, I imagined a nation of dead-eyed, uniform-thinking, mud-hut dwellers living a third-world existence. Obviously backward, fully controlled, luddite society. I regret my prejudices and am very impressed by the passions and philosophies of a young-hearted society. Not to mention hip and good-looking and tech savvy. It's regrettable that we get to know them through this event.
I think that this event's ability to change perceptions of Iran in the West is one of it's most powerful aspects. I think it highly unlikely that the results will be reversed, but I do think that there are several possible good outcomes. 1) I think the Ahmedinedjad's executive will be weaker. Both in terms of deepening the struggle evident in the internal politics (agitating the domestic split between Iranian governing bodies - supreme leader, governing councils, military, office of the president - see reza aslan's commentary on cnn and the daily beast as well as all of sullivan's excellent links to resources on internal government structure and political dynamics). 2) I think that if protests are sustained, citizens in Western countries will give their leaders more leway to use diplomacy. Citizens of the West may come to believe that it is not Iran that is inherently flawed, but the leadership. And leadership can change. Not to mention the fact that weak leaders in a diffuse power structure are often easier to negotiate with because they have so much to lose and are not sure who has their back. That means they need more of something (many things) to sure up their position and continue their existence so, outside parties have more they can offer. More options on the table with Iran is a good thing.
So what do we think of the Republican party's determination to escape its doldrums with the mastery of new media and an appeal to young black and Latino people, versus its series of "yes our elected people employ unsubtle racists who can't master e-mail or twitter" scandalettes?