There has been speculation the past few days as to what Iran has been up to regarding its nuclear ambitions.  Iran  has been suspected of seeking nuclear weapons in the past, but now it claims that it test-fired missiles capable of reaching other Middle East targets.  This might very well be true, but it should not alarm Washington in any significant manner.  There have already been calls for military intervention, and I believe that such calls should cease as soon as possible.  Iran is stuck in between two countries both currently occupied by the United States.  Its government has faced serious internal dissent recently, and most of the world questions the legitimacy of the latest election.  It’s essentially Iran versus the world, and the Islamic government is rapidly declining in popularity at home.  Any nuclear threats are attempts by the fading government to exhibit some kind of muscle, especially after seeming so weak for so long now.  It would be highly detrimental for the United States to intervene militarily.  Such an intervention would give the regime much more cannon fodder, and the opposition movement might just rethink its criticism of Ahmadinejad.

I had the priviledge of watching and finding inspiration in President Obama’s speech to America’s schoolchildren today.  His message of hard-work and self-responsibility made me want to get off my ass and do something other than crossword puzzles (I have the day off).  It was a harmless and motivational address, and I am completely at a loss for words as to why conservative parents have been so up in arms.  Bob makes a good point.  These idiotic people cannot stand the fact that someone more educated than they are is actually telling their children to strive to make more out of themselves than they have.   “Who would actually want to be president?” they wonder.  I sure did when I was a youngster, and I remember a time when the president was actually someone admired by most people.  As a child, I remember George H.W. Bush and his presidency, and I went a fairly liberal private school which required us to participate in a jingoistic video sent to troops in the Persian Gulf.  I was proud to be a part of something like that, and I did not detect any inkling of a political agenda at that age.  In fact, I really do not see anything overtly political in that project today.  Yet these insane parents, without any knowledge of what President Obama’s actual speech was to contain, accused him of trying to spread some kind of socialist agenda.  These people are twisted individuals, and those of us with a little bit of sense would concievably be better off ignoring them.  But when I hear about people bringing guns to town hall meetings, I am truly inclined to think that they might be more dangerous than we know.

Should we long for the days of Nixon?  Paul Krugman thinks so.  Sure, Watergate and Cambodia were not commendable, but the old-school Republican approach did  accomplish a lot in those five years.  What Nixon understood was that Democrats are not going away, and that the only way for Republicans to get anything done was to compromise.   For all of Nixon’s faults (and there were plenty), at least he had the good sense to reach across party lines and shake a few hands every once in a while, particularly when it came to an issue as pressing as health care.  Ted Kennedy, who passed away last week, was another example of a politician who had the decency to work with his rivals.  Alas, an era has ended.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the two American journalists arrested in North Korea, were released yesterday by the regime after talks between former President Bill Clinton and “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il.  It was an act of pure altruism on the part of Clinton, and the two prisoners are visibly grateful.  This is eating up the neoconservatives.  Obama, by allowing Clinton to work independently of the administration, knew what he would be in for if he were to do it himself.  John Bolton’s op-ed is the most glaring example.

What is unnerving is the pervasiveness of this type of attitude among neocons and some not-so-neo cons.  A lot of people sincerely believe that the United States has the right to dictate how everyone in the world should behave and that diplomacy is not even an option in some cases.  The cynicism on the right is often baffling, but this is quite extreme even by their standards.  Reagan Republicans love to recall their hero’s denunciation of Carter during the 1980 presidential campaign, but few tend to remember that Reagan also negotiated for the release of hostages in Iran and Lebanon.  The double standard is huge.

A couple of days ago FBI agents arrested seven men in North Carolina on charges that they were plotting to wage “violent jihad” overseas.  These suspects were plucked from my home state, only a short distance from where I am sitting now.  I am not about to give a lecture on the “importance of realizing that terrorism could happen anywhere and that we need to be prepared for it at all times.”  That is overused rhetoric and it is way too alarmist for my taste.  What struck me, though, was not only the proximity of these guys but the nature of the plot.  This small episode might provide some much needed insight into Islamic terrorism in general.  The fact that the ringleader, Daniel Patrick Boyd, is a white man who almost resembles Jeff Foxworthy is interesting in itself.  His cohorts are Muslims of various ethnicities, all of Middle Eastern or Eastern European descent.  Charles Kimball, in his excellent book When Religion Becomes Evil, discusses the appeal of charismatic individuals who lead religious movements.  Jim Jones and David Koresh are two that come to mind quickly.  This particular case strikes me as something of a small cult, if indeed the FBI is fair in its charges.  Just as violent cult leaders tend to defect from mainstream society with their armies of followers, Boyd split from his mosque in Raleigh due to “ideological differences.”

Now, what can this minor case tell us about Islamic terrorism in general?  In the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, terrorist cells usually operate with little connection to one another.  Charismatic authorities such as Osama bin Laden or Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah) have similar goals in mind, but their differences are so great that they would have difficult conspiring together.  This is actually true for terrorist organizations of all stripes.  Charismatic leaders can be dangerous, but they are less so when they are not in control of millions of people.  We are living in interesting times, but isn’t it nice to know that there are no Hitlers or Stalins out there?  If Daniel Patrick Boyd and his henchmen are truly guilty of these grave charges, the FBI did its job.  If not, has the paranoia gotten out of control?

Once again, I apologize for being so stubborn about my posts.  It’s been a busy past few weeks.  The death of Robert McNamara, a man more important than Michael Jackson in many respects, has really given me some food for thought.  The former Defense Secretary was largely responsible for one of the most destructive wars in history, but he was willing to admit his mistakes.  Errol Morris’s film  The Fog of War is a must see.  Morris’s interview with McNamara forces him to answer some crucial questions about the morality of waging war.  Today, it seems as though our leaders don’t even ponder these questions.  McNamara urged us to empathize with our enemies.  Could we imagine empathizing with the Taliban?

I was away in LA for a few days, so I am sorry about the delayed posting.  I visited UCLA while I was there, and I discovered today that Michael Jackson died at the university hospital.  He was an incredible entertainer and an impeccable musician, and he will be missed by many.  Andrew Sullivan gives some very keen insight into his personal life.  He most certainly was a tortured soul, and an often misunderstood one.  I imagine his transgressions will eventually take a backseat to his legendary recordings and performances.

It really is no coincidence that the revolution unfolding in Iran is primarily a generational revolt.  History is replete with these types of uprisings – Prague Spring in 1968, the United States in 1968, Tiananmen Square in 1989.  The old regime has lost legitimacy and a new generation is taking over.  Will Iran go the way of China in 1989 or Eastern Europe that same year?  This is all too intriguing.  I am on the side of the Moussavi supporters.

It’s only “green” because the Moussavi supporters have been wearing green.  It has nothing to do with climate change, which Americans associate with the color.  Nonetheless, it’s a revolution- and a big one.  Bob Felton is right in pointing out that this is a revolution in the world of news, as thousands of Iranian students have been blogging and twittering throughout this entire event.  But what makes this particularly interesting is the fact that this is taking place in Iran, which has long been frowned upon by Western countries as being anti-modern.  Things change overnight sometimes.  Remember the fall of Communism?  I vaguely do, being about 6 or 7 at the time, but it was big and sudden enough to make an impression on me.   Follow Andrew Sullivan.

It’s official.  Ahmadinejad and the hardliners have sealed Iran’s fate.  Dictatorship will prevail and democracy will just be wishful thinking.  Mousavi’s supporters have turned out in droves, starting fires and attacking police.  This is a major moment in recent Iranian history, and the hardliners better realize that they will have to deal with internal dissent.  A handful of other authoritarian states exist in this same way, namely Zimbabwe and Burma.  In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe managed to steal election after election, but he eventually was forced to recognize a power-sharing deal with rival Morgan Tsvangirai.  Burma’s military junta has yet to loosen its hold, and oppression is still widespread.  Hopefully the mullahs will realize that a majority of Iranians are disillusioned with their politics and attempt to allow some reform.  I think a large-scale rebellion of sorts will have to take place in order for this to happen.  The guys in charge are not going to relinquish what they percieve as their rightful positions as inheritors of the Islamic revolution.   Here’s some good analysis from The New York Times.