David Hines (hradzka) wrote,
David Hines
hradzka

the Iranian election results

I seem to recall that a while back there were some supposedly serious people arguing that Iran was actually really quite democratic, all things considered. These people tended to ignore the fact that the reigning mullahs had veto authority over who was actually allowed to enter the race, but in their view, the US was creating an inaccurate picture of Iranian despotism. The related arguments include: Ahmadinejad is Not That Bad, and even if he is he's Not a Really Consequential Figure and also the Real Power Doesn't Support Ahmadinejad. I'm looking forward to their commentary on this bit of news. The level of fraud in Ahmedinejad's re-election is making Chicago politics look like a garden club election. There are crowds of people protesting on the street; it's reported that there are scores dead. God knows what's going to happen, but it won't be pretty. Really freaky insight at the previous link: Iranian law requires a three-day wait after an election before certification by the council of experts and final approval by the Leader (Khameini). No such thing happened. Iran's former foreign minister tells THE NATION, bluntly, that what we've just seen is not an election, but a coup d'etat.

President Obama seems resigned to having the Iranians getting nuclear power. I think this is a potentially cataclysmic error on his part, and that's not hyperbole.

(Not to say we don't probably need to focus more on the Norks right now. They're doing lots of nuke testing, and they've got a track record of exporting material and expertise, and they're perfectly willing to nuke Seoul just for the hell of it.)

Odds of a small-scale nuclear war in the next two years: dramatically rising.
Tags: news, politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    Help
  • 0 comments