Beautiful Horizons

Useful FTool

I don't object to Eva Golinger going to Venezuela and supporting Hugo Chávez's government in Venezuela. While I disagree with her, she's certainly entitled to her opionion.

I am also entitled to mine and the linked article doesn't present her in a flattering light, but her sense of annoyance at the article is, frankly puzzling. She claims to be defending social justice, but praises the government of Aleksander Lukashenko, notwithstanding extensive reports of human rights abuses by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN (pdf file). She praises Ahmed Ahmedinejad as "gentle," while ignoring the evidence of brutal repression in his government; a government that has imprisone thosuands for the non-violent expression of their beliefs.

A friendly suggestion: if you want to be taken seriously and not just be perceived as a tool of the government, put some critical distance between yourself and the government. Supporting Chávez is one thing, but supporting the likes of Lukashenko and Ahmedinejad, frankly makes you appear to be little more than a sycophant.

Thomas Friedman's stopped clock sounds an alarm

I'm not a fan of Thomas Friedman's, but since he says so much I'm certain that, on average, twice a day he says something or other to someone that I fully agree with.  Here's something, culled from the WikiLeaks brouhaha, that I came across today:

"Saudi Arabia and its Arab neighbors want the U.S. to decapitate the Iranian regime and destroy its nuclear facilities so they can celebrate in private this triumph over the hated Persians, while publicly joining with their people in the streets in burning Uncle Sam in effigy, after we carry out such an attack on Iran — which will make the Arab people furious at us. The reason the Arab people will be furious at us, even though many of them don’t like the Persians either, is because they dislike their own unelected leaders even more and protesting against the Americans, who help to keep their leaders in power, is a way of sticking it to both of us."

I don't need a bunch of new reasons to think that bombing Iran is a crazy idea, but the preponderance of "Middle Eastern leaders" urging us to jump off that cliff - from Cairo to Tel Aviv  (in tandem with the neo-con obsessives at PNAC) - should give any sane American pause.

There may Be Other Reasons As Well

Boz rightfully praises Brazil for agreeing to go along with the additional sanctions on Iran in the UN Security Council, but I think there's something more to it as well.

The tone of the criticism of Lula in Iran regarding his offer of asylum to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman who faced death by stoning for adultery had to have stung. Lula's offer was referred to as "emotional," as if one could not be repulsed by the concept in this day and age of stoning to death.

I believe that Lula's offer was genuine, if way too late, and offered as a compassionate gesture. This could well be payback for mocking his compassion. If so, bem feito (Portuguese for they got what they deserved).

Why Is Anyone Surprised By This?

Lula unenthusiastically offers asylum to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery:

"I have to respect a country's laws, but if my friendship and regard I have for the president of Iran and the Iranian people is worth something, if this woman is causing discomfort, we could take her in in Brazil," he said.

I can understand Lula's interest in wanting to be willing to talk to all on any issue, but he's showing a bit of naivete here; principally the fact that Ahmed Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran. All he had to do was google who runs Iran to get this.

In addition, it certainly seems like the quasi-official media in Iran is mocking Lula:

While no Iranian government officials commented on the Brazilian president’s plea, Jahan News, an ultraconservative news service in Iran that is regarded as credibly reflecting the government’s thinking, said Sunday that it was a “clear interference in Iran’s domestic affairs.”

Jahan also said that the Brazilian offer was made “under the influence of foreign media” and that the defendant, Sakineh Ashtiani, 43, might not be stoned to death because Iran’s judiciary was reviewing the lower court’s sentence. She could be hanged instead.

Memo to Lula: the government of Iran is brutal and repressive. It's the same sort of government you rebelled against in your own country. They've played you in the past and they just mocked you. Bear that in mind the next time they need a favor from you. Perhaps telling it like it is might be a better route to take in the future. He certainly

Better to Jaw-Jaw . . .

I believe that Greg and Boz strike the right notes here regarding Brazil's attempts to broker a deal with Iran to stop processing enriched nuclear fuel. As Brazil and Turkey say that a deal is imminent, why not keep an open mind?

It won't be Lula's failure if the deal doesn't pan out any more than it would be any other country's failure. What bothers me is the tone coming from some in the media, who Boz links to, especially Mac Margolis of Newsweek, Paulo Sotero of Foreign Policy and the overall tone of this article in Saturday's New York Times. Julia sweig, once again is being sensible:

Julia Sweig, also of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Brazil was exercising its own version of what America often did.

“Americans believe that only they can cast themselves halfway around the world to refashion events on the ground, and expect the international community to defer,” she said. “Brazil, too, and for similar reasons, is motivated to insert itself on an issue seemingly beyond its natural interest.”

These are the facts:

• The US has no influence in Iran
• China and Russia do, but they are not particularly willing to get significantly involved

What is wrong with Brazil at least making an attempt? Their diplomats are among the most skilled in the world.

Iran

Iran is, once more, embroiled in violent protests of the corrupt, dictatorial regime.  I have no idea what this outbreak signifies for the immediate survival of the current theocracy, but I am hopeful mass dissidence might bring it to an end in the near term.  Andrew Sullivan has consistently been the best source among bloggers for updates bringing together timely and wide-ranging information on the protest movements in Iran.

Update: More online Iran news from the Times here.

The Right's Historical Amnesia

History according to the right, with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

"First they installed Reza Shah Pahlavi. I did not speak because I really couldn't care less.

"Then they installed his son Reza Mohammed Pahlavi. I did not speak because he did our bidding.

"Then they overthrew a democratically elected leader. Mohammed Moosadegh. I did not speak because my source of cheap oil was protected.

"Then Reza Pahlavi created SAVAK. I did not speak because he was our s.o.b.

"Then he spent lavishly on himself and his Pharaonic projects while so many were unemployed. I did not speak because oil was still cheap.

"Then he was overthrown. I spoke up because they took our citizens hostage.

"The Iran was invaded by Iraq and Ronald Reagan became a supporter of Saddam Hussein who was committing war crimes by using poison gas against Iran. I did not speak because everything Reagan did was correct.

"Then Reagan sold weapons to Iran - considered by his own administration to be a terrorist state -  to finance an illegal war in Central America. I did not speak because was incapable of ever doing anything wrong.

"Then George Bush invaded Iraq, strengthening Iran in the region. I did not speak because Saddam had suddenly become a bad man after invading Kuwait and of course Reagan still could do no wrong.

"Then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad participated in a farcical election and the people who I had joked about bombing, whose nation I was foaming at the mouth to invade needed only our president to verbally challenge Ahmadinejad and he would fold like a lawn chair because a show of testicular fortitude would make him cringe.

"But then there was no on left to listen because everyone saw it for the cheap and rank bit of political opportunism that it was."

Yet Another Modest Proposal

Since Hugo Chavez claims to be a Christian, allow me to call to his attention this verse from Proverbs 26:11:

As a dog goes back to its vomit, so a fool repeats his stupidity.

Indeed. Hat tip to Marc Cooper.