New boss.

Looks like even in Iran, sometimes elections don’t turn out the way you expect. Been there, done that, right? At least our pundits can’t say it never happens here. Fraud tends to happen around the fringes in our system, when the margins are relatively tight. Iran has much more serious, systemic problems. Even so, the people there obviously know what to do when things go badly wrong – get out in the street. These are the people we want to bomb so badly. I hope Americans are taking a close look at those folks out in the street, putting their necks on the line. This is the enemy, folks – the “axis of evil”. Whatever Bush used to say about having no quarrel with the Iranian people, it is they who would suffer in the event of any confrontation between our countries, just as they have suffered in the past, when we overthrew Mossadeq in 1953, through the decades of rule by our ally the Shah, and under massive assault from our other ally Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. Just take a real close look.

I imagine Daniel Pipes is kind of disappointed right now, since Ahmadinejad’s seems to be on the brink of evaporation. Probably still rooting for him. He and his fellow neocons just love Ahmadinejad with his over-the-top rhetoric (frequently misquoted to make him sound more threatening), and Pipes himself has professed a preference for “an enemy who is forthright, blatant, obvious” over a more conciliatory figure. Once again, the facts are being fixed around the policy. There’s a strong preference for military action against Iran amongst a faction of foreign policy hardliners, some of whom reside in the Obama administration. (My guess is Dennis Ross is the man to watch this time around.) Though he does not set foreign policy or control the military, Ahmadinejad helps them make their case. I don’t have to tell you, wars are easier to stop before they start, rather than after (See: Iraq), so this is when you should make your opinion known about opposing military action by us and/or Israel.

Does this Iran election controversy have a familiar ring to it? If so, perhaps it’s because something very similar happened in Mexico in 2006, when Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ran against Filipe Calderon and most likely won the election, but was chiseled out of the presidency by Calderon (with the full support of the Bush administration, of course). To look at news coverage of Mexico today and its relationship with the United States, you would never know that there was any question surrounding Calderon’s election. Massive street protests yielded no change, no re-run of the election, no nothing. Could be that Iran’s current uprising will end the same way, despite the hopes of many. That would be sad for the many in Iran who wanted things to change, but with respect to U.S. policy, it is we who must change, whoever the president may be. We’ve invaded and occupied countries on both sides of Iran, we regularly threaten them with massive destruction, and yet we speak of them as the outlaw state. Hypocrisy, anyone?