This week's column

Iran: This emperor has no clothes

Americans swallow enemy propaganda at face value, subjecting us to knee-jerking manipulation by fiery orators. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with a few choice phrases, successfully elevates himself to the status of a Muslim "Hitler." But this populist windbag is already losing his grip in Tehran, giving Washington a strategic opportunity we don't yet appreciate.

While American neocons and Israeli hawks would bomb Iran today, lest it continue enriching uranium, try viewing the situation less emotionally.

Read on at KnoxNews
Read on at Scripps Howard

Comments

[Undercover Blue]

Right there with you on Ahmadinejad. And thanks for the reminder of the treatment Khatami got from our hardliners. Your analysis of the real threat vs. the propagandized one is reassuring and hopeful. But it's not your perception of the threat from Iran that worries me, it's Bush's.

The actual threat from Saddam and his nonexistent WMDs wasn't as grave as the pre-invasion propaganda said either. That didn't stop the invasion the administration had already decided on.

I'm hopeful that the public will indeed "see through the propaganda" this time and demand a different approach to Iran. I'm just not sure that, in the end, the actual threat and what you or I think will have any effect on what the president and his men finally do.

[Debbie]

I did a post filed under humor way back on Ahmadinejad. He must be the worst dressed leader of any country. Someone needs to take that man shopping. It's not true that you can 'tell a book by it's cover' in his case.

[JRRICHARD]

One aspect of the debate that is rarely addressed is the practicability of a rogue regime actually carrying out the launch of a nuclear missile that can reach US territory and how precisely this could take place. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Cheney made it sound as if Saddam could-- the moment he had enough nuclear material--push the button and hit LA or Chicago with a missile. Now, according to the "news", when/if Iran acquires enough nuclear material--which may be at any moment--Ahmadinejad could push the button and a missile would be headed our way.

{Dean Barnett should assist Hugh with the questions.}

[TM Lutas]

As we shouldn't take their propaganda at face value, we shouldn't take our own. By threatening hostile action, Ahmadinejad is stirred to action, and stirred to further empty the treasury when he's already barely making ends meet. Throwing more balls at a juggler you don't like until he must drop one is a way to victory. I think that's what Bush is really doing. The Iran invasion will remain covert, or nonexistent, but the talk will not turn into another Iraq, much to the disappointment of the less perceptive neocons. How many will be truly disappointed and how many will be playing out their role as chief provokers on behalf of Bush will have to wait for their memoirs.

[Thomas Barnett]

Many water carriers on both sides, TM. You just always want to believe the best on Bush, leaning too hard on the Reagan-bankrupted-the-USSR myth, an argument that relies too much of affection for Reagan than anything you hear out of countless Soviet histories and memoirs. Yes, Gorby says it, but hated at home by all, his sad attempts to ingratiate himself with conservatives here is painful to watch. Plus, as his rule proved, Gorby was gawdawfully clueless about the USSR's fall.

Nixon killed the USSR by slow poison, and it was a masterful thing to watch. The countless lives he saved on that one overwhelm any guilt he carries on Vietnam.

[TM Lutas]

Absent Nixon, my entire personal life would have been quite different. I've long recognized my personal debt to the man. My family's permission to emigrate here (among many other families) was the result of a nixonian quid pro quo for MFN for Romania.

The death of the USSR was a multi-presidency affair, agreed. Each presidency had their own role to play. Reagan was crucial, in my opinion, on multiple fronts, only one of which was the psychological pressure he exerted on the USSR. I do not think that we would have made convincing enough winners without his relentless "Morning in America" cheerleading.

I also think that the AFL-CIO's entry into Poland (I once shared a plane ride with one of their trainers who schooled Solidarity leaders in Polish RC basements) would either not have happened or would have happened much less effectively without Reagan's sunny conviction that we could win and win soon. A less well trained Solidarity might not have been able to make the Polish communists blink.

Bush, unfortunately, is not as gifted as Reagan in inspiration and communication. Bush has the same challenges, though. He has a hostile domestic and world media, a corrupt international order that is ok with not winning against an obvious evil, and a messy situation that could easily go wrong, badly.

You say I always want to believe the best of Bush. It would be rather more accurate to say that I refuse to join in attacking Bush when doing so does not serve the goal of bringing about a future worth creating. I keep my eyes on that prize as I have three kids I want to live in a future that I won't be ashamed to hand over to them when their time comes.