Walk like an Iranian, throw a shoe

I admit it, I am just wasting time. I should be writing a lit review for a grant application, but alas, I just can't seem to stay focused on the work.

I am surprised by how much the shoe throwing journalist has generated buzz. No not by our snarky media in the US,,,,I figured it would be a big deal here. Lots of jokes as has happened. But how Arabs and others in the middle east are responding to it, surprises me. I'm not sure this incident needs Jay Leno to keep it going.

I heard on the BBC this morning, that in Iran, street vendors are setting up targets of Pres Bush and people take out their frustrations by throwing their shoes at him. So, here is my little Iranian street vendor,....

According to Time,

And one major issue will undoubtedly be case of shoe-tossing journalist Muntader al-Zaidi, who became a hero on
the streets of Iraq and much of the Arab world after his failed attempt to bean
President Bush at a press conference. Zaidi is to stand trial on New Year's Eve,
Abdul Satar Birqadr, the spokesman for Iraq's High Judicial Council said Monday,
on charges of "assaulting a foreign head of state visiting Iraq." Even if
putting Zaidi on trial appears to risk igniting public hostility, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
may yet seek to make the case work to his a political advantage ahead of next
month's poll, for which some 17.5 million are registered to vote.

The former speaker of the Iraqi Parliament praised Muntader the shoe thrower as "brave."

The newly resigned Iraqi parliament speaker on Wednesday praised the
journalist who threw shoes at President George W. Bush and said the legislature
should have supported him.

Is this a sign of a maturing democracy where "Muntader the shoe thrower" becomes a celebrity and hero of the political opposition aka Joe the Plumber? Such political characters have a long history in the US, so why not in Iraq?

But the effects of Muntader the shoe thrower go beyond just Iraqi politics. It has become a basis for pride and self esteem for Iraqi outside the borders of Iraq. For instance,

“

The Iraqi people are courageous people,” a taxi driver in Amman, Jordan, told me
a few days ago. It was strange to hear this praise after hearing years of verbal
abuse from Arabs in Jordan and Syria. When my uncle was shopping in the market
in Amman recently he heard a voice yell: “Are you Iraqi?” In the past this would
be followed by a speech about the war and the Americans. Instead the man yelled
to my uncle: “You made us proud.”

If this raises Iraqi's pride, egads, what would something more, erhm, lethal have done? Makes me kind of wonder. Political violence is one thing, but makes me feel good violence is another.

I don't really get it. But then, I didn't really get the outrage at the Danish cartoons. Ha, ha. And we should all be able to laugh a bit at ourselves. Now, I can laugh at Muntader the shoe thrower, but I don't get 'brave' (perhaps misguided, impetuous, maybe even dumb). I think it goes to show how different our respective perspectives are. And how much folks in that part of the world dislike us. I don't think it is just Pres. Bush (I really wish it were), but he is a stand-in for the rest of us.

If President Ahmadinejad changes his mind on nuclear development is that a flip-flop?

BBC ran this article

In short, it says the Iranian President changed his mind is open to nuclear talks, the day after saying he would not budge one iota on the issue. If good leaders don't flip flop, then doesn' such a sudden change make him a bad leader? of course, that is what we want him to do....

Of course, there really isn't a change, it is more to ensure "deadlock" according to the article. No flip-flops for Pres. Ahmadinejad, just hardline positions. Kind of like our non flip-flopping President.

If everyone follows the script, war will serve certain domestic interests

here is a different (and more thorough) analysis of the recent Iranian missle tests.

this analysis suggests, as I wish more would, that provocative displays of military force and claims of dangerous weapons development are more about domestic consumption than anything else.

It sounds like a script. The Iranian president who won his closely contested election playing on the problems of the regular Iranian people.... well, he has done nothing. So, he and the mullahs need to do something to distract from those issues as well as send messages to the people that they are beyond challenge. To me not much different that Saddam's WMDs. He had to keep the illusion in order to maintain power at home.

So, Iran's internal politics leads to more bellicose rantings toward Israel. Israel, on cue, responds with military training which could be s rehearsal for a strike against Iran. On cue, Iran fires off missiles, which our intelligence suggets demonstrates no additional capability and some faked pictures to suggest more capability than they have.

The "Great Satan" (what the extremists in Iran call the US), then on cue begin sabre rattling, all for Iranian domestic consumption.

Now, when the missile tests occurred, the Bush administration, especially Secretary Rice used it as an excuse to call for the missile shield in Europe and Georgia...all of which irritated the Russians who oppose the defensive missiles. McCain was ready to launch the invasion now. Obama, however, his response was to wait until the intelligence anaylsis shows if Iran has shown additional military capacity (which in the end, it didn't, and as this article suggets may actually show weakness). So, on the matter of judgement...who is showing the best judgement? Sen. McCain or Sen Obama? Who is eager to play the role being orchestrated by our enemies? More bellicose threats from the US actually serve the interests of the extremists in Iran. But what domestic interests does such bellicose respones here serve domestically?

The diplomatic pressure, however, looks like it is beginning to work on Iran.

What if the Iraqi government is buying weapons for militias to kill Americans?

Love that provocative title.

WaPo reports our military preparing plans to tke military ations against Iran. At one level, so what. that is what the military does, plans to destroy every other country on earth. We probably have planned to invade Canada. On the other hand, given our current leadership, it is troubling.

I find this very troubling: "Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power.""

Nothing new there. In fact, isn't that the same reason we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran? So Iran wouldn't be the regional power? And now we are doing it again, except, as critics in the talk back portion of WaPo point out, the Al-Maliki government is friendly with Iran. True. And the same government that is planning military action against Iran, also certified the election of an Iraqi government that is friendly toward Iran. Shouldn't the government of Iraq be outraged at the Iranian action?

But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved."

What if there is amoking gun that the Iraqi government knows about these arms shipments? What if they are paying for them? al Maliki has the most to gain by cozying up to Iran. Without his own militia, (which is why he is the compromise leader), he is personally rather powerless. But if he can buy a militia, or gain a lot of credit with arms, ..., well, this is all speculation.

Imagine that for a Bush legacy. Invade a country based on false premises, certify a democratic government that cozies up to a dangerous US enemy, which in turn is helping to kill Americans. Can his successor somehow get us out of there without leaving a disaster? None of the current Presidential candidates have a plan for doing so. I hoped Sen. Obama would propose something following his questioning of Gen Petraeus and Amb Crocker. So far, however, nothing.