Iranian Irony

Wow. That's a headline. Thanks for setting that up.

Iran has been in the news lately, hasn't it? This is largely thanks to Ahmadinejad's talent for controversy, though it's a cheap laugh at this point as Ahmadinejad is a study in self-parody. He does legitimately represent some concernable issues - nuclear proliferation and human rights chief among them. Serious issues aside, every time I hear/see this guy it is an uncomfortable reminder of the current, reprehensible state of politics. Let me stir your memory: this guy speaks at the U.N. (along with, admittedly, Hugo Chavez who said "Bush is The Devil." Now this happens to be one point I agree with him on, despite my lack of religious dedication. Clearly Ahmadinejad isn't alone in his playa hatin')!! Nonetheless, the U.N. was formerly an association where matters of serious character were discussed. Of course George Bush speaks there too, so it's hard to wax philosophical about the degeneration of a formerly respected body...

Our Wager on War With Iran - Part II

Elaborately argued. Your points detailing war scenarios are well laid out but a bit obvious, as you admit in your "positions" section. Your principal contention that "Bush [is] going to perform another no-holds-barred predetermined baseless drive to war: fabricating and distorting evidence, pounding doubters into submission, manipulating Powell (even easier now that it's Rice), etc." is, I think, an exaggeration of the issue. You might agree with this since you go on to say that the drivers of war are clear, NOT "baseless fabrications." How can war conditions be clear yet the case for war be comprised of hearsay? I would argue that the numerous Iranian diplomatic forays into Iraq supporting Sadr and his militia make for a very easy war argument in and of themselves, especially compared to the Iraq abomination.

On the other hand, I find your argument for Iranian containment to that if the USSR during the Cold War extremely compelling. We must play the passive and thoughtful protagonist to the compulsive antagonist of the Iranian administration. Perhaps that does lead us to a prolonged stand-off. I would argue that a principal difference is that the international community (for what it's worth) did not exist to thwart the Soviet Union as it does Iran today. We couldn't say "stop enriching/stop installing nuclear infrastructure etc.)"

I think the administration has learned a thing or two since its most recent debacles in the Middle East. It will proceed cautiously and, as much as Cheney is doubling over with the desire to blow the hell out of the Iranians, it is the tremendous reality of world affairs that will keep him drooling like a Mastiff instead.

So:

The timing is within the end of this administration.
The protagonist is us or anyone of our allies
The prize is a hefty dinner

You have until February 1st 2009...

By the way, stop sourcing bizarre Israeli sympathizing publications for evidence. Forgiven this time as your last name is Schumann."