Featured Articles — June 24, 2009

June 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes From Home And Abroad:

Iran’s Crisis: The Opposition Weighs Its Options By Tony Karon, Time
Iran’s political crisis would end pretty quickly if the opposition went toe-to-toe with the security forces — and no matter how courageous and determined the demonstrators are, the likelihood of them toppling the regime on the streets right now is pretty remote.

Iran’s Regime Will Never Be the Same By Edward N. Luttak, The Wall Street Journal
At this point, only the short-term future of Iran’s clerical regime remains in doubt. The current protests could be repressed, but the unelected institutions of priestly rule have been fatally undermined. Though each aspect of the Islamic Republic has its own dynamic, this is not a regime that can last many more years.

Iran’s Struggle, and Ours By Robert D. Kaplan, The Washington Post
The now-joined struggle for Iranian hearts and minds is where the universal battle of ideas — democracy vs. tyranny — meets the dictates of Middle Eastern geography. Whereas Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are puzzle pieces carved out of featureless desert, with no venerable traditions of statehood, the roots of a great Persian power occupying the Iranian plateau date to the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid empires.

Hugo Loves Mahmoud By Jaime Daremblum, The Weekly Standard
It is clear to all but the most blinkered observer that Iran’s recent presidential election was a sham. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent “victory” over challenger Mir Hussein Mousavi, and the violence that followed, confirmed that the Islamic Republic is a brutal police state that crushes dissenting voices. Most governments around the world have refused to congratulate Ahmadinejad, realizing that such a gesture would merely legitimize the stolen election and discourage the pro-democracy protesters marching in the streets.

Tyranny’s new nightmare: Twitter By Tim Rutten, The Los Angeles Times
As new media spreads its Web worldwide, authoritarians like those in Iran will have a difficult time maintaining absolute control in the face of the technology’s chaotic democracy.

Hezbollah, Hamas, & Co. Fear Iran Mullocracy Can’t ‘Meddle’

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

Every political movement needs a foreign policy, for the Syrian dictatorship and Islamist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran’s mullocracy intervenes with military aid and as a champion of the takfirist strain of Islam.

Andrew Lee Butters writes at Time:

Indeed, the crisis in Iran seems to have heightened the sectarian and authoritarian sensibilities of some Lebanese Shi’ites. A recent reporting tour of Hizballah’s stronghold in the southern suburbs of Beirut found overwhelming support for Ahmadinejad, hailed not only for standing up to the U.S. and Israel, but also as a champion of Lebanese Shi’ites. There was not much sympathy for the revolutionary credentials of Mousavi and his supporters. “Those who are demonstrating in Iran must be burned,” says Wissam al-Amin, a 34-year-old architect. “We are with dictatorship in preventing demonstrations if their purpose is to create instability in Iran.” (Read an exclusive interview with Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mousavi.)

Iran built its regional influence in no small part by contrasting itself with the Arab regimes that stood by helplessly when U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad or Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza. Its image may lose some luster on Arab streets, however, should Iranian tanks roll through Tehran.

Hitchens: Khamenei’s British Conspiracies Are Punchlines

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

One of the reasons why the Iranian people largely tried to oust Ahmadinejad — and now Khamenei — is that they became publicly embarrassed about the apocalyptic rhetoric, antisemitism, and belligerence from their leadership. Christopher Hitchens — unlike Andrew Sullivan et. al — grasps the fact that the extremism of the clerics doesn’t positively correlate with rational political thought.  According to Hitchens, these noticeable characteristics have become somewhat of a parody in Iranian society especially when it comes to hating on the British (two U.K. diplomats were expelled from Iran today):

The best-known and best-selling satirical novel in the Persian language is My Uncle Napoleon, by Iraj Pezeshkzad, which describes the ridiculous and eventually hateful existence of a family member who subscribes to the “Brit Plot” theory of Iranian history. The novel was published in 1973 and later made into a fabulously popular Iranian TV series. Both the printed and televised versions were promptly banned by the ayatollahs after 1979 but survive in samizdat form. Since then, one of the leading clerics of the so-called Guardian Council, Ahmad Jannati, has announced in a nationwide broadcast that the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, were the “creation” of the British government itself. I strongly recommend that you get hold of the Modern Library paperback of Pezeshkzad’s novel, produced in 2006, and read it from start to finish while paying special attention to the foreword by Azar Nafisi (author of Reading Lolita in Tehran) and the afterword by the author himself, who says:

In his fantasies, the novel’s central character sees the hidden hand of British imperialism behind every event that has happened in Iran until the recent past. For the first time, the people of Iran have clearly seen the absurdity of this belief, although they tend to ascribe it to others and not to themselves, and have been able to laugh at it. And this has, finally, had a salutary influence. Nowadays, in Persian, the phrase “My Uncle Napoleon” is used everywhere to indicate a belief that British plots are behind all events, and is accompanied by ridicule and laughter. … The only section of society who attacked it was the Mullahs. … [T]hey said I had been ordered to write the book by imperialists, and that I had done so in order to destroy the roots of religion in the people of Iran.

Fantastic as these claims may have seemed three years ago, they sound mild when compared with the ravings and gibberings that are now issued from the Khamenei pulpit. Here is a man who hasn’t even heard that his favorite conspiracy theory is a long-standing joke among his own people. And these ravings and gibberings have real-world consequences of which at least three may be mentioned:

Accordingly, Christopher Hitchens also explains that Obama’s fawning endorsement of an “Islamic Republic” (who knows no boundaries of irrational hate) will have its consequences:

That last observation also applies to the Obama administration. Want to take a noninterventionist position? All right, then, take a noninterventionist position. This would mean not referring to Khamenei in fawning tones as the supreme leader and not calling Iran itself by the tyrannical title of “the Islamic republic.” But be aware that nothing will stop the theocrats from slandering you for interfering anyway. Also try to bear in mind that one day you will have to face the young Iranian democrats who risked their all in the battle and explain to them just what you were doing when they were being beaten and gassed. (Hint: Don’t make your sole reference to Iranian dictatorship an allusion to a British-organized coup in 1953; the mullahs think that it proves their main point, and this generation has more immediate enemies to confront.)

Even Legitimizing The Regime Is Intervening

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei criticized President Obama for fomenting an uprising after a letter was sent to him through the Swiss Embassy. What a surprise:

Prior to this month’s disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself.

Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election.

U.S. officials declined to discuss the letter on Tuesday, a day in which President Obama gave his strongest condemnation yet of the Iranian crackdown against protesters.

An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranian, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the topic, said the letter was given to the Iranian Foreign Ministry by a representative of the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Iran in the absence of U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations. The letter was then delivered to the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, he said.

The letter was sent before the election, whose outcome – delivering a supposed landslide to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – has touched off the biggest anti-government protests in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

and:

“The American president was quoted as saying that he expected the people of Iran to take to the streets,” Ayatollah Khamenei misquoted Mr. Obama as saying, according to a translation by Mideastwire.com.

“On the one hand, they [the Obama administration] write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties, and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe? Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists.”

To quote Michael Ledeen, “we meddle because we exist.”

Mullahs Join Protests

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

The story:

In a blatant act of defiance, a group of Mullahs took to the streets of Tehran, to protest election results that returned incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.

Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown. What is important here, is the decision to march against the will of Iran’s supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mullahs rule supreme. They are the country’s conservative clerics; the guardians of the Islamic revolution and its ideologies. They’re loyal only to God and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iranian opposition supporters took to the streets in protest of their candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi’s loss in the June 12 presidential elections.

The Police At Work

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

Taped Monday in Tehran, a Mousavi supporter is beaten by Iranian police:

Iran Soccer Players On The Outs

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

For wearing green wrist bands, they will be permanently “retired.”

A New Tactic From An Iranian Tweeter

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

Via Sully, go to the Bazaars, don’t wear green, and don’t buy anything:

Mousavi – We will not expend any more energy talking to the Gov in the streets – we must change course #Iranelection breaking news RT RT RT

Mousavi – From Today every morning at 9am WE ALL travel to Tehran Bazaar – whatever reaction from Gov – Bazaar will close

Mousavi – stop all work and travel with friends & family toward Tehran Bazaar every day at 9am

Mousavi – do NOT wear green – dress normally – bring your children – if stopped u are ONLY going shopping

Mousavi – the objective is to bring Tehran to standstill – millions of people go shopping but NOBODY SHOPPING

Mousavi – There is nothing to fear – if asked – YOU ARE ONLY GOING SHOPPING

Mousavi – no matter what the reaction of the Gov – the Bazaar will close or be at standstill

Mousavi – http://bit.ly/fmvIZ – #Iranelection RT RT R.

Pivotal Player: The Iraq Effect And Ali al-Sistani

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran, Iraq War | Leave a Comment 

It is being reported by the EurasiaNet civil society that as Ali Akbar Hashemi Rasfanjani plots against his nemesis Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the Holy City of Qom, he is also ganering the support of Iraq’s most senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani:

Now that Ayatollah Khamenei has become inexorably connected to Ahmadinejad’s power grab, many clerics are coming around to the idea that the current system needs to be changed. Among those who are now believed to be arrayed against Ayatollah Khamenei is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shi’a cleric in neighboring Iraq. Rafsanjani is known to have met with Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani’s representative in Iran, Javad Shahrestani.

Now since al-Sistani was a key ally of the United States in Iraq, would his emergence have been possible if it weren’t for the fall of Saddam Hussein?

Pivotal Player: Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

As Mousavi plans to stage a protest in front of Iran’s parliament, the speaker of the Majlis, Ai Larijani has summoned Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli (the lead official overseeing the June 12 elections) on his department’s brutal reaction to the post-election protests. Larijani –  a Khamenei ally who holds his own presidential ambitions — accused The Guardian Council of pro-Ahmadinejad biases and now is calling on Iranian state television to offer air time for Mousavi.

In another important development from the Iranian parliament, it’s being  reported that the Majlis have abolished the draconian punishment of “stoning.”

Confirmed By Mousavi: Protest Outside Iran’s Parliament

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

Calls for a new “sea of green” just came over the transom:

Please come to Baharestan Sq. in Tehran tomorrow at 4pm.

The New York Times’ lede blog also reports that Mousavi and Khatami might speak at parliament tomorrow.

In any case, while strikes haven’t been called yet, Mousavi’s latest move might prove them imminent as the government has deemed protests illegal.

Iran State TV: Neda Murder Staged

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

My goodness:

Iranian TV, quoting an unnamed source, said Neda was not shot by a bullet used by Iranian security forces. It said filming of the scene, and its swift broadcast to foreign media, suggested the incident was planned.

Her fiance Caspian Makan told BBC Persian TV that Neda Agha-Soltan had been caught up accidentally in the protests.

“She was near the area, a few streets away, from where the main protests were taking place, near the Amir Abad area. She was with her music teacher, sitting in a car and stuck in traffic,” it quoted him as saying. “She was feeling very tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just a few minutes.”

U.K. Diplomats Expelled, Iranian People Still Not Repulsed By Western ‘Meddling’

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

While the Iranian government is brutalizing their own people, Ayatollah Khamenei has called the British government “evil” and has expelled diplomats for speaking out against it. In response, the British have expelled Iranian diplomats from London:

Conservative leader David Cameron said the expulsion of the British envoys was “clearly not acceptable” and backed the retaliatory measure.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office described the claim as “baseless”.

A spokeswoman said: “We think the Government of Iran is seeking to blame the UK and other outsiders for what is an Iranian reaction to an Iranian issue.

“This has a potential impact on our staff safety and is unacceptable. We have taken the decision to reciprocate.

Meanwhile there are reports from the twittersphere that the Iranian government is blocking dissidents from seeking refuge in foreign embassies.

No New Elections

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

The Guardian Council has assured the people of Iran and the world that the massive election fraud will stand: No new election in Iran as parliament schedules Ahmadinejad inauguration:

Iran’s Guardian Council has refused to annul the June 12, 2009 presidential election in which hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently won a crushing victory over moderate reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi. The national parliament, meanwhile, has begun deliberating on the date of Ahmadinejad’s inauguration, set to be sometime between July 26 and August 19.

The Guardian Council is the body of high clerics and jurists that oversees Iranian elections, and has not wavered from endorsing what it says was a legitimate victory for Ahmadinejad. Along with the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the Council has repeatedly denied the allegations by Mousavi and his supporters protesting throughout the week that Ahmadinejad was allowed to steal the election through massive fraud.

Council spokesman Abbas Ali Khadkhodaei said that votes from particular ballot boxes and districts may be annulled “if a major breach occurs within an election.” The Council claims there was no such occurrence and therefore no annulment is warranted or possible, despite acknowledging that there were more ballots cast than eligible registered voters in multiple cities across the country. According to the Council, those extra votes were still not enough to swing the vote heavily either way and thus need not be questioned.

But Ayatollah Khamenei has begrudgingly accepted another 5 days of reassessment. Seems like a tactful attempt to tell the Iranian people that the election review process was fair and thorough:

According to sources monitoring Iranian state television, Ayatollah Khamenei has agreed to stretch the assessment period for election-related complaints by five days. Typically, the Guardian Council has ten days–and ten days only–to judge the validity of fraud charges, meaning that the investigations would’ve ended tomorrow (the complaints were officially submitted last Monday). But Council officials asked for more time to eliminate any ambiguity–and Khamanei acquiesced. Sounds like more stalling, but let’s see what the extra time brings…

President Obama Condemns Violence, But Diplomacy With Regime To Continue

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

I want to make clear that this isn’t a partisan issue. Nevertheless, I don’t attest to the sincerity of  President Obama’s condemnation today of the Iranian government’s  use of violence against its own people.

At the onset of the Q&A, The Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney asks the perfect question from an Iranian dissident: “under which conditions will you accept the election of Ahmadinejad and if you do accept it without any significant conditions isn’t that betraying the Iranian people?”

The answer is that there are no conditions. President Obama is already dead set on negotiations even if Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are able to rein in the protests, in effect legitimizing the rigged elections and the brutality of the regime that has already damaged its reputation worldwide.

There are early signals of this attitude. Despite the potential that this uprising could change politics in Iran forever, the President continues to acknowledge the permanence of the theological construct of the “Islamic Republic.” And despite his qualms about picking a dog in this fight, in an interview with The New York Times’ John Harwood last week he equivocated the people’s challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi to the Ayatollah’s hand picked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The excuse that somehow if America throws support behind the will of the Iranian people, they will be reminded of America’s sordid ‘imperialist’ past is  simply a hedge against the fall out of option A: a ‘grand bargain.’

But President Obama is too late,  Americans and Westerners have already loaned their support via twitter and other social networking sites, offering advice ranging from medical to the technological.

So if President Obama is simply cold and Machiavellan, then appeals for him to speak out on his powerful pulpit are futile. But if he simply lacks political courage or is ignorant of the events unfolding, he should take a few minutes to check out the #iranelection twitter timeline or the youtube videos depicting the violent crackdown against the largely peaceful dissidents and ask himself: why are these people communicating with the outside world? Furthermore, why are Iranians — even Mir Hossein Mousavi — communicating in English?

It’s certainly telling that Great Britain, France and Germany have been vocal in their support for the people’s movement and — believe it or not — the dissidents have thus far have not been repulsed. Those injured and terrorized by the Basij militia have sought refuge in foreign embassies, fearing that they’d be arrested or killed in government hospitals.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of ‘engagement,’ President Obama will open U.S. embassies for regime diplomats on the anniversary of American independence.

Anniversary of the Smoking Gun

June 23, 2009 by David Emig | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Nixon in the News, Richard Nixon, Watergate | 5 Comments 

When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!

–Richard Nixon

to H.R. Haldeman

June 23, 1972

By that order, on this day thirty seven years ago, Richard Nixon destroyed his Presidency, and set into motion the events that would lead to his resignation less than twenty-two months later.  Still, it is way past the time for supporters and critics of Richard Nixon to put the “Smoking Gun” and indeed all of Watergate into proper perspective.  While the events and implications of June 23, 1972 are important, they cannot overshadow everything else.

Under federal law, obstruction of justice is defined as: “[t]he criminal offense, under common law and according to the statutes of many jurisdictions, of obstructing the administration and due process of law.  It is “[a] criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.”  (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.)  Specifically in Watergate, President Nixon could have been held accountable for violating the Omnibus Clause {18 U.S.C.A. § 1503}.  The relevant portion of this statute covers “endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”   (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.) Unlike many of the other charges that others in Watergate were tried and some convicted for: obstruction of justice is uniquely President Nixon’s.  The June 23^rd tape ties Nixon to Watergate, directly and forever.  It is only within the power of the executive to order to use one executive agency to stop a criminal investigation by another.

Many believe that the President wanted to stop the investigation out of a legitimate national security concern.  After all, some of the burglars were involved in the Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba.  However, this reason is a red-herring.  An invasion eleven years ago has no relevance to a political break-in.  Bringing up the Bay of Pigs fiasco was just a way to remind Democrats and the current CIA apparatus of the potential reopening of a politically embarrassing event of a Democratic administration.

When one consults the Haldeman Diaries, things don’t seem clear cut.  On the editor’s note on page 475, CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters was to call the FBI Director Gray to tell him to stop his investigation.  However, on July 6^th, the editor’s note on page 481 states that Walters told Gray that CIA had no interest in Watergate.  RN then told him to continue the investigation.  (See Haldeman, H.R. “The Haldeman Diaries”, 1994.)

Of course the original intent wasn’t to find out if the CIA had interest; it was to stop the investigation entirely.  In addition, the Omnibus Clause covers “endeavors” as well as successful attempts to obstruct justice.

Much later, Richard Nixon discussed the “Smoking Gun” tape in both the Memoirs and in a later book, “In the Arena”. In the Memoirs, he said that Haldeman informed him that the CIA and FBI had a long-standing agreement not to interfere in each other’s secret operations.”  (See Nixon, Richard; Memoirs, 1978, p. 640.)   In his book, “In the Arena”, RN stated that one of the myths of Watergate was that he committed obstruction of justice.  He received bad advice from aides (Dean) who themselves had something to hide.  And besides, the officials at the CIA, Director Helms and Deputy Director Walters ignored the White House request and the investigation continued.  (See Nixon, Richard; In the Arena, 1990, pp. 34-35.)

There is still no evidence that the break in was a secret operation.  The Plumbers who participated worked for the White House or the Committee to Reelect.  Even if there was no actual obstruction, the Omnibus Clause clearly concerns endeavors to obstruct.  And while advisors advise, it is the President of the United States who is responsible for the decisions made. And this decision cost Richard Nixon the presidency.

After the disclosure of the tape in the first days of August, it was felt to be an impeachable offense by both sides of the aisle.  After the June 23^rd tape was disclosed by order of the Supreme Court; the President’s support among Republicans evaporated.  Years later, Barry Goldwater recalled the last meeting…

I said, I took a nose count in the Senate today.  You have fourteen votes.  The others are really undecided.  I’m one of them.

(See Goldwater, Barry, “With No Apologies”, 1979, p 279.)

It was clear that he would be the second President to be impeached in the House, and the first President in history to be convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

The action on the tape was quintessence Nixon.  Richard Nixon always thought in political terms — in political right and wrong.  His instinct was to limit the political damage for his reelection — in which he reasoned wasn’t a sure thing.  The action also showed his character.  The President wanted to protect the people who worked hard for him and the country.  Richard Nixon’s loyalty to his friends and allies has always been without question.

Of course, one must factor the era of Watergate to be taken seriously in historical circles.  It is the elephant in the room.  However, it must not cancel all of the achievements of the Nixon years.  Remember it was President Bill Clinton who said, “may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”  (See Remarks by President Bill Clinton, Funeral for President Richard Nixon, April 22, 1994.)

After all, Richard Nixon was an “American Pioneer” in many ways.  As Vice-President, he traveled the world more than any previous Vice President.  He was the first Vice President of consequence in the modern era, rather than being a figurehead waiting for tragedy to step in.  As President, his vision and actions unlocked the doors to mainland China.  His different strategy of Vietnamization ended American involvement in the Vietnam War; and serve as instruction for modern conflicts like Iraq.  President Nixon was the first president to make an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union.

Domestically, Richard Nixon was a pioneer too.  Revenue sharing through programs like the Philadelphia plan was without precedent.  His administration spearheaded clear air legislation, creating the Environmental Protection Agency.  The Nixon Administration also federally funded cancer research, and proposed the first comprehensive health care system.

And finally, Richard Nixon will also be appreciated for how he handled the end of his Presidency.  His resignation set the precedent for transition of power.  Unlike many other countries, no military coups, or violence and revolution in America’s streets.  Just an orderly, if not emotional transfer of power.  It showed that Richard Nixon valued the institution of the Presidency, and indeed the country above all else.

So, even if Richard Nixon’s presidency was ruined thirty-seven years ago today; his example as a statesman and his achievements as president are with all of us even today.  Take it all as Richard Nixon’s to his country and the world.

(I welcome your comments.)

Featured Articles — June 23, 2009

June 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes From Home And Abroad:

An Overlooked Force in Iran By Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
Women in sunglasses and headscarves, speaking through megaphones, brandishing cameras, carrying signs: When they first appeared, the photographs of the 2005 Tehran University women’s rights protests were a powerful reminder of the true potential of Iranian women.

Something for Nothing By David Brooks, The New York Times
On May 12, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on health care reform. There was a long table of 13 experts, and a vast majority agreed that ending the tax exemption on employer-provided health benefits should be part of a reform package.

Is War between Iran and Israel Inevitable? By Erich Follath, Der Spiegel
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may seem very different, but they are united in their apocalyptic religious visions. Their respective beliefs may be propelling them on a collision course with potentially horrific consequences.

Phalavi: Revolutionary Guards Defecting

June 22, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

The son of the late Shah reports:

Based on anecdotes, reports and conversations he claims to have had with those inside the Iranian establishment, Pahlavi said security forces are beginning to distance themselves from the regime.

“We’re not going to wake up tomorrow and see that everybody from the Revolutionary Guard is now suddenly on the side of the people. It has to start trickling in. The good news is that it has already started,” he said, during an emotional talk at the National Press Building in Washington, D.C.

He cited stories of security forces members who are putting on plain clothes after their shifts and joining the protests in the streets. He said one of the Guard’s “higher echelon members” reportedly said he cannot “morally” stand by the current system.

“Many, many elements within the security forces, within the Revolutionary Guard are showing discontent,” Pahlavi said. “There is an amazing reflection that is happening. … This is a movement that has blown out of proportion.”

But a well placed contact who cannot be identified because of a lack of authorization to speak publicly told FOX News that anecdotal reports of wavering among the security forces are seen as just that — and until concrete evidence appears of members defecting or officers refusing to take their posts, it is difficult to have a high degree of confidence in such claims.

The Weekly Standard Changes Owners

June 22, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, New Media, News media, Political Philosophy | 1 Comment 

One event that received comparatively little coverage during the tumultuous events (here and abroad) of the last week was Rupert Murdoch’s sale of the journal of opinion, the Weekly Standard, to the Clarity Media Group, owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz.

The Standard, edited from its inception by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, was launched in 1995 with expectations far exceeding those of the usual periodical of its type. The Republicans had captured both houses of Congress the year before. Rush Limbaugh’s audience numbers were large and still growing. But the existing conservative opinion magazines, in those days, seemed to have trouble taking advantage of the resurgence of the Right. National Review was in a somewhat fallow period. Human Events was on the borderline between moribund and fallow. And the American Spectator was approaching the chaotic period during which it nearly vanished.

So it seemed that, with financial backing from the Murdoch communications empire, the Standard would have little trouble becoming the country’s leading conservative journal. And, in its first three or four years, things looked quite promising. Within a fairly short time the magazine’s circulation moved into the high five digits. From the start, the stable Kristol and Barnes assembled included a number of young but very bright and able journalists – Andrew Ferguson, Christopher Caldwell, and Matt Labash foremost among them – and soon added more writers along those lines, including Tucker Carlson. Meanwhile, Joseph Bottum (later succeeded by Philip Terzian) supervised a Books and Arts section which, thanks to contributors like P.J. O’Rourke and Christopher Hitchens, soon proved itself the best among opinion journals in the country, whether liberal or conservative.

The flip side to these successes was the fact that the Standard did not turn a profit. This was only to be expected; the very nature of America’s journals of opinion precludes their being able to attract many advertisers, who usually prefer magazines to be nonpartisan in nature, so it is a rare year when any of them emerge from the red for even a moment. Nonetheless, thanks to Murdoch’s deep pockets it looked, during the 1990s, that the Standard might soon achieve preeminence in its field.

But during the last decade this has not been the case. There are a number of factors involved. First, the competitors managed to get out of their ruts. National Review experienced a renaissance after Rich Lowry became editor in 1997, and in the last six or seven years that magazine has established a very impressive presence online. This in turn has helped to keep its presence in print viable; its current circulation of 155,000 is almost double that of the Standard (which, according to Wikipedia, is now about 83,000).

The American Spectator, since 2003, has been undergoing a gradual but definite resurgence, with a lively website. Its circulation of about 50,000 is well below its heyday of 1991-1992 but a considerable improvement from its low point around 2001. Even Human Events, thanks to its regular contributions from Ann Coulter, has held its own.

By contrast, the Standard was rather slow to establish a comprehensive presence on the Web, and suffered for this. Its other drawback has been its ideological viewpoint. From the very beginning the magazine’s editorial stance skewed more toward neoconservatism than was the case with the competition. This was to the Standard’s advantage during the heyday of the neocons during the first term of George W. Bush. But in the last three years, with the conservative movement gradually shifting to more traditional channels (as exemplified by the return of Newt Gingrich to prominence, for example), the Standard has been left behind.

Last fall, it looked as if the rise of Gov. Sarah Palin to prominence might change this; Kristol and Barnes had been the leaders in bringing her to notice in Washington. But since the election, the Standard’s profile seems to have become less and less pronounced.

And although Rupert Murdoch’s support for the magazine never wavered, as Richard Morgan reports in thedeal.com, his wife Wendi Deng is said to have been vocal in her dislike of the weekly. This seems to have been a major factor in Murdoch’s decision to sell.

Philip Anschutz is an industrialist who’s made his mark in recent years by branching into various parts of the media; one recent success was the film version of The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe. His forays into the world of ink-on-paper have not been as successful. He owns two giveaway dailies named the Examiner (in San Francisco and Washington) but the plans he had a few years ago to expand the Examiner brand to print newspapers in several dozen cities was replaced by a concentration on local websites. Nonetheless, he definitely has the wherewithal to keep the Standard going. (In this respect the magazine is rather luckier than The American Conservative, which almost went under last month before being reconstituted as a monthly.) And a spokesman for Clarity Media has stated that there are no changes planned for the Standard’s staff or editorial position. Since the Examiner does have a substantial online presence (which is still in development), it will be interesting to see if the Standard begins to increase its visibility in this area.

Confirmed: National Strike Called

June 22, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iran | Leave a Comment 

From breaking tweets:

It is now after midnight in Iran – officially Tuesday – and Breaking Tweets can now verify that a national strike has indeed been called for on this day in Iran.

Numerous reliable Twitterers in Iran are now confirming this news. Many are saying that Mir Hossein Mousavi himself called for the strike, however the official Twitter and Facebook pages for Mousavi do not yet mention it. It is possible he communicated this through other means.

Even so, there is a clear organization for this general strike, first rumored several days ago. Trusted Iranian Twitterers said confirmation of the strike would not come until the last possible moment so that it catches the government off guard, and confirmation is now surfacing.

There is a call for all workers, government and non-government, not to show up to work and for Iranians to do no business on Tuesday. Many have called for bazaars to shut down. Some are calling for the strike to last longer than Tuesday to further disrupt the nation’s economy and cripple the current government.

The question is how many will participate and how effective the strike will be, as SMS, cell phone networks, and many Web sites remain offline in various parts of Iran. Mass protests the last few days have undoubtedly been disrupted and there has been confusion due to the lack of communication channels. It is also uncertain how widespread this movement will be outside of Tehran.

« Previous Page — Next Page »