Meanwhile In Qom. . .

I still think they win through fear. They are waterboarding and hanging people now. I know it would set Cheney's heart aflutter. But, it's scary stuff.

Time for Johnny Mac and the Testosterone Caucus to call for Obama to undercut the religious leaders by foaming at the mouth against the Supreme Leader.

Sarah Palin has indicated that she left because she has a higher calling.
.
Send her over there.
.
That'll fix those fockers...

More seriously, I think that Obama is handling this just about right, Joe.
.
The Supreme Pizza is just aching for a reason that has any shred of legitimacy to "disappear" these people - and Obama, as ungrateful as he is, refuses to supply it!
.
In the longer run, there is time for the reformist forces within to reorganize to adjust and respond to "contingencies" that the Ayatollah plans.

i totally agree. Let the country sort out it's future with minimal US bluster that could tilt the country against us even more.
.
i am worried however about the consequences of a potentially destabilized iran. I mean, to make things worse, it's right next to pakistan. what would that entail for the US and the military?

and by the way 53, this is ms, not joe.

lupercal5:
.
"and by the way 53, this is ms, not joe."
.
Wow. Not enough coffee. Looking over wreckage on tennis court from last night.
.
I have to say then that Mikey has brought in some content from outside that is as level and thought provoking as Joes. Thanks, Mike.

Imagine how different things would be if McCain were president right now, or, shudder, Palin. How did we manage to get a president who got this one right?

As for consequences militarily and politically, some basic points are that unlike Pakistan, Iran does not have use for, or gives political sustenance to, either the Taliban or Al Queda.
.
The two countries total some 180 million people*, and in order to involve ourselves militarily, we would need to institute a draft.
.
We just do not have enough mustard on the fastball militarily to handle something like this right now, and the geopolitics are such that any 'limited' activity could touch off something more than a 'limited' response.
.
*an educated guess, not real important other than to say the two countries are collectively and separately much larger than Iraq was.

[...] re-election of President Ahmadinejad continues to play out in Iran.  (Commentary from Swampland here.)  If the mullahs in Qom are speaking out against the regime, what’s next? It’s rather [...]

"How did we manage to get a president who got this one right?"
.
I don't know, but one of the consequences was that I was even more proud of my country this year than in years past. That salute was just a little snapper, and the emotion was just a little more intense.

"...an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country's clerical establishment."
.
I thought that the smart take was that it was essentially a split between the military (with Khamenei's support) and military hard-liners backing Ahmadinejad and pretty much the rest of the country, including most of clerical establishment. The Qum statement tends to support that theory.

shep:
.
The link doesn't work. Care to take another shot at it?
.
Thanks

" .. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate .. as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult — if not impossible. .."

"more difficult — if not impossible"? Who says, the USA's Israel-centric MSM?
"as criminals and traitors." Aren't they?
Whike you are at it, add "agitators, saboteurs, lackeys, low-down scoundrels and scum" to that.

Some of our preachers and religious organizations supported the Gore candidacy in USA's presidential elections of 2000.
If Gore, who garnered a majority of the popular vote, had opted not to concede defeat, what would MS have written then?

The world will never know.

[And maybe MS regrets that Coleman terminated that Franken-Coleman election saga in Minnesota.]

Sorry about that:
.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-15/irans-military-coup/

,i>"If Gore, who garnered a majority of the popular vote, had opted not to concede defeat, what would MS have written then? .."

Let us make that more interesting:
Suppose Russia and China and France had come all out in support of a shrill, never-give-up Gore challenge after USA's presidential elections2000 - with veritable media blitz in USA, overt/covert agitation on the internet, money for the renegades and vicious diplomatic blitzkrieg at the UN their parliaments and "rights" bodies.

No, you say, American people would not tolerate foreigners interfering in our elections. And in such a case, the renegades in cahoots with foreigners would be guilty of crimes that carry serious penalties in our legal system.
Granted, that is intolerable.

But if it is intolerable to us in USA, it must be intolerable to all in this globbal village, right? After all, we are fond of talking about universal values.
Then why do we (that is, the value crusaders named USA, UK and the EU plundering coterie) interfere in the elections in other countries and
- 'rule' against any rerun [Kenya(2007), Iraq(2005)...],
- push for a re-run [Iran(2009), Macedonia(2008), Ukraine(2004) ...]
- or denounce recounts(Iran(2008), Kenya(2007)...]?

Must our clown win in order for imperial us, the only superpower, to consider an election in that foreign country legitimate? [Was Netanyaho actually our clown in the recent Israeli elections?]

[Here is where you find out how good you are at the neo-con/christian duplicity.]

shepherdwong: " .. I thought that the smart take was that .."

I have become leery of "smart takes" ever since those smart guys told us the Iraq had WMD.
Aren't the informed smart ones who told us that the invasion of Iraq would be quick and decisive - with the Iraqi welcoming us as heroes (in the manner of the citizens of Rome lining the streets to greet a returning conquering general?)

[It is said that when smart neo-con Paul Wolfowitz was awakened by the boom of a bomb going off nearby, he was seen running pell mell out of a hotel in Iraq with(out) pyjamas. War-mongering cowards.]

And talking of the smart Alan Greenspan ....

How did we manage to get a president who got this one right?

Well.

How did we who wanted change manage to be sooooooooo retrogressive?

AT least we knew where McCain stood on issues - no doubt about it. "Bomb, Bomb Iran, Bomb!", McCain says and kathy was in a tizzy.

.

Talk of sly conmen with beguiling tales who ambush you and stab you dead when your guard is down.

AT least we knew where McCain stood on issues - no doubt about it.
"Bomb, Bomb Iran, Bomb!", McCain says and Kathy was in a furious tizzy.

Now, here we are, casually initiating a new (Israel-mandated) murderous war front in IRAN, and Kathy is totally unaware or unconcerned - still relishing her memories of the election night euphoria and BHO's vacuous, beguiling siren songs!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_iran_israel

"I have become leery of "smart takes" ever since those smart guys told us the Iraq had WMD."
.
The only people I know who ever thought the neocons had the smart take were other neocons and more than a few Villagers. Many more centrist/libertarian types were impressed with Greenspan but the DFHs never were. So, if you ever thought Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, or Greenspan had "the smart take" then yes, be very leery of who you believe.