My Pet Peeve

If the so-called science on global warming is so settled, why does the adminsitration rely on such shoddy work to support their claims and proposals?

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?

Because the idea that man is causing whatever warming can be demonstrated (though not in the last decade) is a belief held with religious fervor?

My Name is Dennis!

So just who made Khamenei the "supreme leader?" Why is he capable of telling the Iranian protesters to shut up?

Just how did he become "supreme leader" anyway?

Probably some farcical aquatic ceremony with a watery tart.



Khamenei should at least show us the sword.

I suspect we'll see the violence inherent in the system fairly soon.

God help the protesters.

UPDATE: For some reason the post doesn't show an individual link and reposting didn't fix it. If you are interested: http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-name-is-dennis.html.

A Threat Right Now

As we debate when North Korea becomes a threat to us with long-range nuclear missiles, remember that the South Koreans are already under the gun:

The independent International Crisis Group said the North is believed to have between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, phosgene, blood agents and sarin. These weapons can be delivered with ballistic missiles and long-range artillery and are "sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea."

Heck, even without chemical weapons the North Koreans could begin a bloody bombardment with just conventional artillery rounds and rockets from their batteries deployed just over the DMZ.

Well, Then, Never Mind

Huh. After rigorous review, the powers that be don't think there was any funny business in the Iranian election. I guess we stand corrected:

Khamenei told tens of thousands of people at a Friday prayer service at Tehran University that the balloting had not been rigged, and he sided with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, offering no concessions to the opposition. He effectively ruled out any chance for a new vote, lauding the June 12 election as an expression of the people's will.

Khamenei, responding to a week of protests of the disputed election on June 12, said opposition leaders "will be held accountable for all the violence, bloodshed and rioting" if they do not halt the rallies.

"Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory," Khamenei said in his sermon. "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."

Did anybody really expect the guy who rigged the entire political process to overturn the result of that manipulated process?

The Iranian protesters don't seem too shocked:

In reaction to Khamenei's address hours later, cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great!" — resounded from rooftops throughout Tehran after dark — similar to other nights this week following rallies supporting reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Just remember, our own Revolution started in 1775 as an effort to assert our rights as Englishmen. It was only after a number of battles with the British that we formally declared our independence more than a year later.

Revolutions evolve from outrage--if they aren't snuffed out, of course.

Sometimes the Moment Makes the Man

In the election in Iran, Mousavi was just a quieter version of Ahmadinejad, with both considered acceptable by the Guardian Council that approved their candidacies:

Mir Hossein Mousavi is a moderate only by comparison with Ahmadinejad. Mousavi was a key figure in the original Islamic revolution and served for a long time as prime minister under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is as committed to the nuclear program as Ahmadinejad. His very modest relative social moderation does not extend as far as allowing women to choose their headdress.

No real moderate, much less a liberal, would have been allowed to run for president.

But Mousavi lacks Ahmadinejad's dedicated, universal extremism and wild rhetoric. The mullahs chose Ahmadinejad's extremism and wild rhetoric. That decision is telling.

The worst thing in responding to an event such as the Iranian election is not to face up to it. The worst example of this, so far, is the anonymous US administration official quoted in The New York Times to the effect that the election result would facilitate negotiations between Washington and Tehran because - get this - Ahmadinejad would feel under pressure to accommodate moderate public opinion. Weasel words such as that give appeasement a bad name.

Yes. There wasn't much difference in substance, but the whackjobs that pull the strings wanted the raving lunatic.

Yet the very acts of protest on behalf of Mousavi have changed him. The Guardian Council believes very firmly that you are either with them or against them. Mousavi is now against the council, and if he has to ride a wave that destroys the regime in order to live through this crisis, he may do just that:

Mousavi either brings down the Islamic Republic or he hangs. If he wins, and the Islamic Republic comes down, we may well see the whole world change, from an end of the theocratic fascist system, to a cutoff of money, arms, technology, training camps and intelligence to the world’s leading terrorist organizations, and yes, even to a termination of the nuclear weapons program.

I think that, whatever or whoever Mir Hossein Mousavi was five days ago, he is now the leader of a mass movement that demands the creation of a free Iran that will rejoin the Western world. And yes, the wheel could turn again, this revolution could one day be betrayed, all kinds of surprises no doubt await the Iranian people. Yes, but. But today, there is a dramatic chance of a very good thing happening in Iran, and thus in the Middle East, and therefore in the whole world.

World events are only history when it is written down. During the events, our actions or inaction determine how that history will be written.

Look, this probably won't break our way, since the regime could be strong enough to beat down the protesters. Even if the election of Ahmadinejad is overturned, Mousavi might not be any better in the long run. Even if the current system of mullah control is overturned, we might get something just as bad (the downfall of the Shah didn't lead to a better government, remember).

But if nothing changes, very bad things will happen when the nuts get nukes. And the current form of the regime is unlikely to get kinder and gentler. I'd like a change. Or a chance for change. Change at least provides hope for Iran.

Will we watch others write a history that we won't like? Or will we dare to "meddle" so that the history of the region has the potential of taking a turn for the better?

UPDATE: Krauthammer covers the major points I've been making the last several days. I guess he's on the Rove distribution list, too.

You Want to Kill Who?

When you think of people who the jihadis think deserve to die, many names might come to mind.

The name Jimmy Carter does not. Yet the jihadis don't see an apologist for jihadi terrorists. They see an American president who must die:

In Gaza, Hamas has less control over Islamic radical groups, and tends to leave them alone as long as Hamas authority is not challenged. This results in a wide variety of Islamic radical groups. One, for example, was recently caught planning to assassinate former U.S. president Jimmy Carter (who has long been pro-Hamas and was visiting Gaza to show support).

Who don't they hate?

Explain to me again how we're supposed to satisfy their demands (I mean, other than by just quietly exposing our necks to their scimitars).

The Speech I'd Like to Hear

Iranians continue to demonstrate over the fraudulent electoral system:

Tens of thousands of protesters wearing black and carrying candles filled the streets of Tehran again Thursday, joining opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi to mourn demonstrators killed in clashes over Iran's disputed election.

The massive protest openly defied orders from Iran's supreme leader, despite a government attempt to placate Mousavi and his supporters by inviting the reformist and two other candidates who ran against hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a meeting with the country's main electoral authority.

President Obama continues to insist that he doesn't want to meddle in Iran's internal affairs. His statements have been muted and couched in terms that show he is clearly looking ahead to negotiating with Ahmadinejad.

This is the speech I'd like President Obama to give in support of the Iranian protesters:

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Is this too aggressive? Too meddlesome? Too judgmental?

But we won't hear the president give this speech in response to the Iranian election fraud.

We won't because President Obama already gave it. In Cairo. Two weeks ago.

They were just words, I guess. And so June 4th.

Squashed Like a Bug

The president swatted a bug while giving an interview on CNBC, and PETA is outraged:

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

Really, this it outrageous. No dialog with the flies? No UN resolution? He just smashed it like a bug? What about a fair trial? But no, the president just snuffed it out like a Predator circling a puppy mill/orphanage in Pakistan. And then he swaggered with his bring 'em on attitude:

"That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

I'm sure this is all a giant ruse by Big Fly Paper to gain a government pest control contract. Obama Lied! Flies Died!

I'm sure on days like this, even the president is a little depressed that he is a liberal with allies like PETA.

On the bright side, the president sent the Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher to DARPA to see if it can be adapted to human use so that the military can catch Taliban terrorists without having to kill them, too.

Waiting for a Decent Interval

As I've mentioned, President Obama wants the Iran protests to go away so he can get on with talking to Ahmadinejad. Robert Kagan agrees:

Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

I find it appalling that our president believes he can't stand up even a little bit for protesters who hope for change from their life under despotism. It's one thing to talk to dictators when you don't have a choice--but how moral is it when there is even a chance that you might be able to get rid of the dictator?

And when the Iranian regime is screaming bloody murder over the mild apologetic statements made thus far, what good is the president's restraint getting him?

Iran has accused the United States of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute.

If we're going to be blamed for meddling in Iranian affairs, we might as well actually meddle!

Why would just speaking up undermine his strategy of talking? I mean, Iran continues to support operations that kill American soldiers and continues to support terrorists. Yet that doesn't make President Obama less likely to talk to Ahmadinejad. Why must we walk on egg shells to appease thugs like Ahmadinejad? Isn't a grand bargain important to him, too?

It's almost as if our president thinks Ahmadinejad's support of terrorism is far more legitimate than a simple statement by him that supports the protesters' general goal of freedom and cautions the regime in Tehran from using violence against them.

The bottom line is that our president wants the peace of a cemetery in Iran. Let the people unhappy with the mullah regime shut up and go home so the smell of blood, gunpowder, and tear gas won't distract from the lovely signing ceremony our State Department has planned when we make a grand bargain with Tehran. If that requires a little bit--or a lot--of force by the regime to impose that domestic "peace," so be it. We will not be deterred from talking to the thugs. After a decent interval, of course.

No matter that Iran will not carry out their side of any bargain. Our president's plan focuses on the agreement and the photo ops that go along with it. The hopes of millions in Iran count for nothing in this game. Reaching out to the Moslem world apparently only means reaching out to the dictators who rule Moslems and not the actual Moslem people.

Don't those rubes marching about in Tehran and other cities going on about freedom know that a Nobel Peace Prize is on the line? Heck, they never revoke the prize, so it won't even matter that the grand bargain will be a sham before the ink is even dry!

Gosh, it's so wonderful that our reputation in the world is being "restored."

Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots

I'm with Lileks on this one:

I didn’t love America any less in the Clinton years than I did in the Bush years, or vice versa; I don’t conflate my opinions about transitory leaders with my opinion about the nation’s role in history and its exceptional, if occasionally improvised, conflicted, and compromised struggle to do the right thing. I mean, go back in history and find another one of us. (Note: small ethnically coherent Nordic states that can’t project power six feet over the border really don’t count.) But unqualified love of country unnerves some people, as though the lack of qualifications means you don’t recognize qualifying factors. Me, I think they’re obvious; we’re made of humans, after all, and every house we build has beams of crooked timber. But I don’t recall a lot of FDR speeches laying out a litany of American sins in order to bolster the case for why America should fight Hitler, despite all those troubling similarities. After all, we lynched Jews, too, ergo we must face our own demons as well as those abroad. And so on.

If you only love your country when your party is in power, you don't love your country--you love your political party.

And that goes for finally becoming proud of your country later in life. If you're not proud of our record, even admitting to faults that don't negate the good we've done, prior to November 2008, you're not actually proud of our country at all.

Dying By the Car Bomb?

Syria has lived by the car bomb, and I've wondered if they'll die by the car bomb if jihadis formerly bound for Iraq through Syria get stuck in Syria with time and hatred on their side. Could Syria become a convenient target for the jihadis?

Strategypage writes about the potential problem of jihadis fleeing Iraq and ending up in Syria:

Although active against the Iraqi Security Forces and coalition troops, Syria is well aware that groups like al Qaeda are frequently just as dangerous to secular Muslim countries as they are to infidels (non-Moslems). Syria, although Moslem, is officially a secular nation and has become increasingly corrupt, incompetent, and autocratic over the last 30 years. All these factors are fertile ground for Islamic terrorism and uprising, which groups like al Qaeda specialize in exploiting to gain more recruits and support. The Syrians realize all this could be a major problem in the future.

Al Qaeda, of course, considers Israel an enemy, but it's much easier for terrorists to operate and strike in countries with popular domestic discontent, corrupt officials, and secular governments. In other words, countries like Syria.

Blowback isn't just something that happens to America.

A Mystery All the Way Around

Foreign militaries are attempting to figure out how our military has been such a formidable force:

As foreign military leaders (especially those in China) scrutinize American military performance in the last decade, there is a debate over how to replicate it for themselves. The American achievement has been striking. They defeated a seemingly intractable Islamic terrorist campaign in Iraq, and are inflicting the same kind of damage on the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing this, the U.S. troops are suffering casualties at a third of the rate of previous wars, and with fewer troops in combat (to accomplish similar tasks from past wars.)

It's not just the fighting prowess that is envied, but the ability to quickly solve tactical and technical problems, and rapidly adapt new technology and tactics to battlefield needs.

At the same time foreign militaries try to figure out why we are so good, our own reporters continue to figure out how our doomed fiasco was turned into a qualified victory by a gamble that reversed our certain defeat.

Amazing. I'll say it again, when it comes to military matters our press corps--with few exceptions--couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

No Open Hand for You

The Georgians are screwing up:

Georgian police clashed with opposition activists in the capital Monday, arresting dozens and beating demonstrators, along with several journalists.

The clash was the latest violence to hit Georgia, as the opposition presses its more than 2-month-old campaign to force President Mikhail Saakashvili from office.

An Associated Press photographer saw truncheon-armed masked officers beating demonstrators who had gathered near the police headquarters. Several activists were severely beaten, along with several TV journalists and camera crews who said they had their tapes and video cameras confiscated.

Deputy Interior Minister Eka Zguladze said the 39 protesters that were arrested had resisted police who tried to arrest several men accused of assaulting lawmakers in an earlier incident. They also were blocking a public street, she said.

I'm sorry, but that attempt to arrest accused attackers won't cut it in the battle for public opinion as an excuse to go Iranian on the civilian protesters. The Georgian officials have to contain the protests and wait for public opinion to clearly turn against the protesters for disrupting daily life. And even then clearing the protest encampments must be done with kid gloves to avoid provoking sympathy for the protesters.

Violence against the protesters will only be acceptable to the Georgian public if the protesters clearly cross the line into extra-legal measures to bring down the government.

If the Georgians think that they can suppress demonstrations with violence and still get American support, they're kidding themselves. Their rather large commitment of troops to Iraq prior to last year's war with Russia will count for nothing with our president.

Who do they think they are, an enemy with nuclear ambitions that continues to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A Light Breeze of Freedom Blows East

Is unrest in Iran over the election results being influenced by our success in Iraq?

Is it possible that the Iraqi election experience had something to do with Iranian expectations of an election? If critics of the war can for just a moment move beyond their own deeply held opinions about the invasion of Iraq -- that this was a war of choice fought on false premises to lower gas prices or whatever -- and examine the effect of that war on the region as a whole, they might see a connection to the current turmoil in Iran. After all, one of the intellectual arguments in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was, in the words of Dick Cheney, to place "a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future.”

I think a case can be made that Barack Obama's election as president has also raised expectations of the democratic process in countries around the world. It is certainly possible that we are seeing an Obama effect in Iran as young people there look to replicate the excitement and enthusiasm of young people here during last year's election.

It could be. I hoped for that before the Iraq War:

So could Iraq spark dominos from Iran to Syria and from Egypt to Saudi Arabia? I hope so. It certainly isn't out of the question given the history of the "discredited" domino theory. With Islamofascism crumbling in Iran, perhaps the region is ripe for the democratic counter-offensive. Shoot, just batting .300 would be pretty good. The ironic thing is, though tipping the domino of Iraq could start a chain reaction for rule of law and democracy in the Islamic world; the Iranian mullahs hoped tipping Iraq the other way, during the Iran Iraq War in the 1980s (the real First Gulf War) would be the first domino to turn the Islamic world into Iranian-inspired and led fanatics. The Iraqis may have held the line long enough to blunt the murderous, Islam-distorting philosophy that today motivates al Qaeda and prepared the region for the day very soon when we reach out our finger and tip the domino the other way. No wonder al Qaeda hates Saddam almost as much as the West.

Let me note that I wasn't conflating Sunni al Qaeda with Iran's Shia mullacracy, but merely commenting on both as a general wave of Islamo-fascism sweeping the region then.

And I don't rule out that President Obama's election could be raising the hopes of Iranian protesters (making our president's stiff-arming of their protests all the more disappointing). That raised hope is surely the result mostly of the unfair portrayal of President Bush, but it could surely exist.

President Obama has little time left to demonstrate that hope and change can apply to Iranians if this display of courage is to be more than a sad foot note in the long history of Iran's dictatorship.

Yet always remember that the credit for even the effort to achieve some degree of freedom in Iran ultimately must go to George the Liberator.

We shall see if gale force winds develop.

Just Killing the Devil

I've repeatedly expressed by pleasant surprise that the Pakistani offensive against their Taliban has persisted. I haven't understood why the Pakistanis have been slow to join the fight to the death.

The offensive is being prepared for a drive into the major bastion of the Taliban:

Pakistan's army launched airstrikes and ferried in tanks and artillery as it confirmed Tuesday that it was preparing a major offensive against insurgents in al-Qaida and the Taliban's safest haven along the Afghan border.

The highly anticipated military operation in South Waziristan is seen as a potential turning point in the years long and sometimes half-hearted fight against militancy in Pakistan. It could also help curb Taliban attacks on Western forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

But the offensive in the lawless tribal region will also be the toughest yet for Pakistan's military, testing both its fighting capability and the government's will to see it through, analysts said.

If the Pakistanis can control their side of the border, it makes our decisions on where to place our troops in Afghanistan much easier:

"We are going to look at those parts of the country that are most important -- and those typically, in an insurgency, are the population centers," McChrystal said in an interview shortly after pinning on his fourth star. He replaced Gen. David D. McKiernan, who was fired by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates after 11 months on the job.

McChrystal's comments suggested that he wanted to pull forces out of some of the more remote, mountainous areas of Afghanistan where few people live and where insurgent fighters may be seeking refuge. In recent months these isolated pockets have been the scene of some of the most intense fighting between U.S. troops and insurgents.

Interdicting the border to keep men and supplies from entering Afghansitan becomes far less important a mission for our troops on the Afghanistan side of the border if the Taliban are interdicted on the Pakistan side of the border.

Check Again in Three Years

The South Koreans received assurances that our nuclear umbrella still stands:

The United States on Tuesday recommitted itself to the defense of South Korea, including keeping Seoul under its nuclear umbrella, the two countries said in a joint statement.

But that assurance is easy now for even the meekest American president to give, since North Korea could be a few years from being able to threaten us:

North Korea's missiles could hit the United States in as few as three years if the reclusive rogue nation continues to ramp up its weapons system, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

Once North Korea can threaten a US city with nuclear annihilation, I'm not sure our guarantee is good. Would an American president really risk Seattle to retaliate for the destruction of Seoul if the North Koreans announced they still had a dozen long-range nuclear missiles in reserve after nuking Seoul?

The prudent course for South Korea to take would be to seek nuclear weapons of their own.

China should take note of this probable result of their defense of North Korea.

Useful Idiots

It seems that our two reporters sentenced to 12 years in North Korea's hellish prison system probably did enter North Korea, if this description is accurate:

Two American journalists sentenced by North Korea last week to 12 years of hard labor were caught shooting video for what the North said was a politically motivated "smear campaign," state-run media said Tuesday.

The reporting team from Current TV crossed the frozen Tumen River dividing North Korea and China three months ago and walked up the river bank — all the while recording their transgression, the official Korean Central News Agency said.

"We've just entered a North Korean courtyard without permission," the Korean translation of their narration on the videotape said, according to KCNA. One of them picked up and pocketed a stone as a memento of the illegal move, the report said.

That the underlying charge is true makes the farce of justice no less true, of course. But the incident of taunting the wild animal highlights the concept of "useful idiots."

North Korea is taking advantage of their foolishness.

The South PACOM Sea

The South China Sea, despite its name, has been an American lake under the guns of our Seventh Fleet ever since World War II. China's navy had been a glorified coast guard until recently.

As we continue our operations in these international waters, the Chinese are pushing their naval elements into what they wrongly claim to be their territorial waters. The result is another incident:

China's Foreign Ministry acknowledged for the first time Tuesday a collision last week between a Chinese submarine and a sonar being towed by a U.S. Navy destroyer.

The incident occurred Thursday, spokesman Qin Gang said, while giving no details.

The U.S. Navy has had little comment on the incident, other than to say that the USS John S. McCain's towed sonar had been damaged. There have been no reports of injuries or damage to either vessel.

It was an accident, it seems. But it was an accident that naturally follows from the decision by China to aggressively confront any American ships (or planes, if you'll recall the 2001 EP-3 incident) in the region.

While we don't want a war over this body of water, we cannot let the Chinese chase us out of the sea. We've never accepted the Black Sea as the Soviet Union's sole domain and we didn't accept the Gulf of Sidra as Libyan waters. But as the latter shows, a shooting match can result from conflicting claims.

We seriously need some type of agreement with China on the rules of the road when our vessels and planes are in proximity. If not, somebody's vessel is going to go to the bottom of the sea in a future incident.

Cause and Effect

Iranian protesters continue to hit the streets to let the regime know they are mad about the stolen election:

In a massive outpouring reminiscent of the Islamic Revolution three decades ago, hundreds of thousands of Iranians streamed through the capital Monday, and the fist-waving protesters denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim to victory in a disputed election.

Standing on rooftops, pro-government gunmen opened fire on a group of protesters who had tried to storm the militia's compound. One man was killed and several others were wounded in the worst violence since the disputed election Friday.

Angry men showed their bloody palms after cradling the dead and wounded who had been part of a crowd that stretched more than five miles (nearly 10 kilometers) supporting reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The huge rally reinforced what has become increasingly clearer since the election: the opposition forces rallying behind Mousavi show no signs of backing down. Their resolve appears to have pushed Iran's Islamic establishment into attempts to cool the tensions after days of unrest.

So far, our government is quiet about the looming bloodshed. As long as the Basij stay loyal to the regime and the army and Pasdaran stay at least neutral, the regime will eventually kill and arrest their way to calm if the protesters don't go away.

Of course, it is possible that the people of Iran haven't had their choice stolen, despite the president's Cairo speech that was supposed to represent a reaching out to the Moslem world:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

That would be inconvenient for the people who view Iran as just a friend we haven't made yet.

Yet focusing on the quick announcement and vote tally misses the point that the vote is the last tainted sham in an entire sham electoral system:

Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not "run." Any newspaper referring to the subsequent proceedings as an election, sometimes complete with rallies, polls, counts, and all the rest of it, is the cause of helpless laughter among the ayatollahs. ("They fell for it? But it's too easy!") Shame on all those media outlets that have been complicit in this dirty lie all last week. And shame also on our pathetic secretary of state, who said that she hoped that "the genuine will and desire" of the people of Iran would be reflected in the outcome. Surely she knows that any such contingency was deliberately forestalled to begin with.

In theory, the first choice of the ayatollahs might not actually "win," and there could even be divisions among the Islamic Guardian Council as to who constitutes the best nominee. Secondary as that is, it can still lead to rancor. After all, corrupt systems are still subject to fraud. This, like hypocrisy, is the compliment that vice pays to virtue. With near-incredible brutishness and cruelty, then, the guardians moved to cut off cell-phone and text-message networks that might give even an impression of fairness and announced though their storm-troop "revolutionary guards" that only one form of voting had divine sanction. ("The miraculous hand of God," announced Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had been present in the polling places and had announced a result before many people had even finished voting. He says that sort of thing all the time.)

Of course, given that the entire vote was between two candidates viewed as acceptable by the Guardian Council, it is at some level silly to portray Mousavi as a democrat. Lots of Iranians poured their hopes into him for some hope of freedom as the anti-Ahmadinejad, but Mousavi is hardly a reformer. Still, some see Ahmadinejad's victory as a potential slap in the face to the West to realize what we are up against:

If the mullahs were really canny, they would have let Mousavi win. He would have presented a more reasonable face to the world without changing the grim underlying realities of Iran’s regime–the oppression, the support for terrorism, the nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. He is the kind of “moderate” with whom the Obama administration could happily engage in endless negotiations which probably would not accomplish anything except to buy time for Iran to weaponize its fissile material.

But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will. Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.

So good comes from a stolen sham election, eh?

Come on! Not a chance. The cause and effect chain continues. If the Pasdaran and army are no worse than neutral while the Basij remain ready to kill and smash protesters, Ahmadinejad will ride out these protests. That's the key. If enough security forces remain with the regime, the regime survives this round.

And with "stability" restored in Iran, the Obama administration reaches past the protesters to the regime to get that grand bargain they hope will get them the Nobel Peace Prize.

And our president will get that prize--no matter that the deal will never be honored by the Iranians, as we'll discover after President Obama is out of office.

All he has to do to get the Nobel Peace Prize is look away and pretend that he has no role in this drama, and then carry on with his plans. What's a bunch of dead students when the liberal view of the world is at stake?

And a bunch of dead students will look cheap compared to the price we will pay if we don't destroy the Iranian regime before they get nuclear weapons. We're getting a glimpse of what lies beyond the Gates of Hell. We'll walk through soon enough, I'd guess, if we miss this chance to stand up with the people of Iran who don't want to live under the mullahs any more.

Imposing Faux Democracy by Force

As our country's leaders continue to look away while Ahmadinejad steals an election and beats those who protest this theft into submission, consider what we are seeing.

Our president famously says that we can't impose democracy by force. This ignores Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea, just to name three [Er, to name four. I hope I never have to handle the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch], but I digress.

The point is that supposedly, democracy can only arise if it occurs without any American support at all that might "taint" the democrats. And if that doesn't happen, those non-Westerners clearly just aren't ready for democracy, which doesn't suit them anyway.

If democracy is so unsuited to non-Westerners, why do thug regimes bother going through the motions of democracy? Iran, for example, actually pretends to have elections. Pre-screened (by the most rigid mullahs) candidates have a pretend campaign for president. Voters go the polls. And election results are announced. The mullah regime continues.

If democracy is so ill-suited to Iranians, why doesn't the regime just announce that the mullahs are selecting the president and jump right to the announcement without bothering the voters to go out and cast a meaningless vote? Isn't that just accepting alien Western ideas about the relationship between the people and the government? Yet Iran accepts the forms of democracy even as it rejects the substance of democracy.

I mean, it's almost as if democracy does mean something to Iranians, and the mullahs need to have the facade of real elections for legitimacy. Ahmadinejad insists their election was real. Massive protests in the street deny this assertion.

It seems like we could undermine a lot of this farce just by publicly and repeatedly denying the legitimacy of the vote and insisting the UN must look into the elections and oversee a new election under fair conditions. We could condemn Iranian government-supported violence against the protesters. We could spread information about the protests so Iranians don't think they are alone and the only ones protesting. We could insist that the Iranian people deserve real elections and real democracy.

We may not be able to reverse the stolen election (because we choose not to try), but why on Earth do we have to pretend that these elections were real?

Part of the Moslem world is extending their hand in desperate hope for our help. We're looking away, hoping the mullah regime can quickly suppress the protesters so we can get back to the nuanced work of trading away Lebanon to hezbollah in exchange for cutting off Sadr's boys in Iraq, trading Iranian cut off of support for Hamas in exchange for our acceptance of Iran's nuclear ambitions, and all the other State Department ideas that constitute a "grand bargain" in the Middle East that the Nobel Prize committee will reward in due course.

And all we have to do is look away while the Basij beat the protesting Iranians into submissiom

Ain't bargaining with Tehran grand?