Madness in Iran: Protests, Arrests and Political Mayhem

Americans thought Bush v. Gore was stressful: Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote - New York Times.

Unexpected Change?

The New York Times does not predict a rock star world tour for President Obama during his upcoming trip to Europe:

Despite his immense popularity around the world, Mr. Obama will confront resentment over American-style capitalism and resistance to his economic prescriptions when he lands in London on Tuesday for the Group of 20 summit meeting of industrial and emerging market nations plus the European Union.

The president will not even try to overcome NATO’s unwillingness to provide more troops in Afghanistan when he goes on later in the week to meet with the military alliance.

He seems unlikely to return home with any more to show for his attempts to open a dialogue with Iran’s leaders, who have, so far, responded with tough words, albeit not tough enough to persuade Russia to support the United States in tougher sanctions against Tehran. And he will be tested in face-to-face meetings by the leaders of China and Russia, who have been pondering the degree to which the power of the United States to dominate global affairs may be ebbing.

Mr. Obama is unlikely to push for specific commitments from other countries on stimulus spending to bolster their own economies, White House officials acknowledged Saturday in a teleconference call, despite the fact that administration officials would like to see European countries, in particular, increase their spending to try to prompt a global economic recovery.

Update: The Washington Post has a similar take.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Rejects Obama's Video Greeting to Iran, Says No "Change," No Deal

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected President Obama's videotaped overture to the country. President Obama released the message on Nowruz - Iran's new year celebration. In his message, the President stated that:

[I]n this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has responded to the video with great skepticism. According to an Associated Press report:

In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.

"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad. . . .

"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."

Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."

I cannot say that this surprises me.

Open Letter to Iran: We Need to Talk

The latest news story from my wonderful city reports that the Obama administration is drafting a letter to the president and citizens of Iran. Apparently, State Department officials have been preparing the letter since November, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to congratulate Obama for his election victory.

According to most articles on the subject, the letter would try to reassure Iranians that the United States does not want to overthrow their government but instead seeks changes in their country's behavior.

But I remember the persuasive arguments by specialists in the region who said that Bush mistakenly believed that the United States could change countries in the Middle East -- at least in the mold that most Americans would accept. But we are now apparently on a "Global Change Initiative." So let's see what happens.

Imagine the difficult task for the persons writing this letter. I suspect that Miss Manners does not have any advice on how to write a letter that "reaches out to members of the Axis of Evil." But maybe we could try something like this:

Dear, Iran:

We need to talk. We know that the Bush administration said you were a member of the "Axis of Evil. We also recall that the last time we were together, radicals in your country staged a coup d'etat and held several Americans hostage. But maybe we can try to put those bad things behind us.

We believe our relationship might work this time, if you try a little harder. Your letter to President Obama was a kind gesture, but it is only a small step in the right direction. We are not trying to start a fight, but if you really want us to get together again, you will have to do things differently. Otherwise, people might think that you have something that we desperately want, like oil. But we do not need your oil. Once we finish rebuilding Iraq, we will have a pretty good supply of petroleum.

Please call Secretary of State Clinton if you have any questions. We look forward to talking to you soon.

Sincerely,

The People of the United States

I am so happy that I am an academic. Sarcasm does not work well in politics.

Who Won the Debate? Depends Upon Which Candidate You Support

The debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was pretty tepid, but it was good (and important) enough to warrant analysis. Partisans will definitely think "their guy" won, and each candidate provided the other with sufficient ammunition to claim victory.

What McCain Didn't Do for Obama

The Democrats wanted McCain to foam at the mouth like a rabid dog. He didn't. Instead, he came across as a senior statesman, offering tons of personal stories about handling problems in the past and even regretting some decisions. Several media outlets are making hay about him not making eye contact with Obama. I guess I was too bored to notice that.

What Obama Didn't Do for McCain

McCain needed Obama to look unsophisticated and raw. He didn't. He looked convincing on the stage.

Surprising Moments

Obama had the audacity to renew his argument that going to war was a bad decision. I agree that it was a bad decision, but choosing Joe Biden, who voted for the war, as a running mate diminishes the force of Obama's antiwar critique.

I was surprised that McCain raised the "experience" argument, which had defined much of his campaign against Obama until Sarah Palin's selection. Palin has a very skimpy resume, and most people believed that McCain had discarded the experience argument. Well, it's back, and it is now coupled with "you just don't get it" or "you are naive." McCain has begun to usurp Obama's slogans and use them against him ("change" and "you just don't get it").

Missed Opportunities

McCain missed the opportunity to expose Obama's inconsistency with respect to the war (saying it was a huge error, but picking Biden as a running mate), and Obama missed the opportunity to neutralize McCain's experience argument by either mentioning Palin or somehow showing that McCain's experience is a bad thing. He did this with Clinton in the primaries, but he was unable to do that during last night's debate.

Slip-Up

Obama said that Henry Kissinger does not disagree with the President of the United States speaking with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without conditions." This actually came up during Sarah Palin's recent interview with Katie Couric. Couric did a "gotcha" on Palin, asking whether she thought Kissinger was naive (a charge McCain/Palin made of Obama) for wanting talks with Iran without conditions. Palin said that Kissinger, who advises McCain and Palin on foreign policy, does not believe this. Couric said that CBS had confirmed that he does. Gotcha!

Obama used the same argument during the debate, and McCain rebuffed him, saying that his "friend" does not support that position. Following the debate, Kissinger released a statement agreeing with McCain. Ouch. Well, not a huge ouch, but ouch. Turns out, he would support other governmental officials meeting with lower level Iranian officials, but not with either country's president, absent conditions. So this is the "Bush Doctrine" redux. Political scientists do not even agree what such a doctrine looks like (or even if it exists). Another failed gotcha.

McCain still cannot pronounce Ahmadinejad on the first try. Bless his heart.

Overall: Slight Nod to McCain

During the primaries, I watched the Democrats debate incessantly; so there was probably nothing Obama could have done that I had not already seen. I did not watch the Republicans during the primaries; so I was eager to see how McCain would perform. Although Democrats have portrayed McCain as a curmudgeon, he did not come across that way. This scores him major points, I believe, and makes any more argumentation on that issue look petty. Obama, however, did not look inept and raw, but still remains vulnerable to that charge, due to his relative lack of experience compared to McCain. Of course, if McCain emphasizes experience, then Palin becomes even more vulnerable than she already is.

I do believe that the public will probably declare McCain the winner, if they follow standards from previous presidential debates. As a good progressive, I was thoroughly convinced that Al Gore and John Kerry won their debates against Bush. Apparently, they did not sell themselves well to the public. Obama is his own candidate, but in many ways, he excites the same demographic as Gore and Kerry, but even more intensely. Highly-educated, coastal, liberal, professional types (like myself) will think he slaughtered McCain. To the rest of the country, he might have appeared a bit like a "know-it-all" (distinct from "uppity") and pious. Here's a message for highly-educated, coastal, liberal, professional types: you have to exit your own skin to try to appreciate this analysis.

These same portrayals tanked Gore and Kerry. In losing, they both were described as too bookish and self-righteous. Yet elite Democrats still seem incorrectly to believe that intellectual depth and nuance and the morality of liberal social democracy are winning arguments in presidential elections. If this were the case, then Gore and Kerry would have won, and Obama would be leading McCain by double-digits, especially given the tragedy of the war and the horrific economic conditions. The fact that the race is close should cause Democrats to rethink their presidential election strategies. Race has something to do with the closeness of the election, but it does not explain it altogether. The last two contests were close, as was Clinton's victory in 1992.

Although last night's debate was lackluster, next week's vice presidential debate could offer a lot of pizazz. The combination of Joe "Loose Cannon" Biden and Sarah "the Moose" Palin is too rich to ignore. Tune in next week for more analysis.