You mean the 2004 parliamentary elections, since the 2000 elections was the one that reformers swept. The 2004 parliamentary elections involved disaqualification of many "legitimate" candidates, although the numbers that are thrown around are misleading. Any person can register as a candidate in Iran. Even someone who does not meet any of the requirements. Even you! That said, while some of the rejected candidates would have won their seats, all the polls showed the reformers were going to lose that election. Indeed, that is why the Guardians Council felt it could disqualify them in the first place. Having lost public support, even with the IIPF boycotting the election, still turnout was above 50%. I was personally disgusted with the disqualifications. The candidates who were disqualified included many incumbents MPs. They were disqualified mainly because they had written an open letter attacking Khamenie personally. For the record, btw, my own favorite political figure in Iran is Khatami. To me, he is both a nationalist and a liberal. A genuine democratic figure given Iran's political realities. As he leaves his office, I bid him farewell. Iran owes him a debt of gratitude. Indeed, I hope one day Khatami will become Iran's "Supreme Leader". If and when that day comes, the real flaws that do exist in Iran's system will be fixed, with Iran coming to enjoy the kind of system that best fits its political realities and history.
Wolfowizt is gone. Bush blessed Iraqi leaders' recent trip to Iran to ask for help. Rummie is talking about substantial troop withdrawal. Condi Rice has tuned down the unilateral approach to foreign policy and she is winning out over Rummie. Bush is showing pragmatism over North Korea. Bottom line, Bush seems to have wrestled control back from the group of people he had to rely on to start this personal war of his. When he was making a speech about being the Education President during the first election, I distinctively heard him say "he who put my father's picture on a hotel doorstep for people to step on will pay for it with the lives of his sons" except I didn't believe my own ears and......... Now that he has done his duty as the loyal son who has always been perceived to be neither very bright nor very capable in the family, I think at this point, Bush wants peace more than war, that is, if he could still help it, and it looks like he could, at this point.
I know. Not the first time either, and won't be the last. The oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer. This has been the default China strategy for the US. It worked great during the Cold War. Then we were fighting Communism, now it's just a way to get Taiwan to buy a few more tanks and force China to pay up. Look the same but because the world has changed, quite different. Then that was idealistic and strategic, this now is just petty. Sooner or later we'll realize that. Until then, of course, the game continues. There're signs that both sides realize it's really a game of Lego, in which different players labor to help each other solve puzzles and build something meaningful together. China is helping America in many ways including the Korean situation. America is alos helping China in many ways including playing a constructive role in the KMT Chairman Lien Chan's recent trip to the mainland. Both seem to understand it's not a zero sum poker game where one player takes another's money. It's a mutually beneficial game of Lego where players help each other solve the same ultimate puzzle, namely, raising the living standards for all people, on all sides. Indeed. Unfortunately there are reckless people in the media who would like to see nothing short of a total war between these two great nations. Shame on them!
I don't know about "easy to win a war". I guess that we already picked up a lesson from Vietnam--any war is a tough thing to win. If we can call that we won the Iraq war already (Don't want to put "mission complished" jokes here.) For win any war, we need a good reason--means the last choice after everything else failed; our security is in apparently danger; we have a LOT of countries on our side--mean not get in by ourself. Becaue we are a powerful country, so many times we overestimated our power, and too relay on it.
I really should have clarified myself there I see. I think that any war the US would get into with Iran would result in a swift style victory with Military objectives met quickly. Any occupation however would be very difficult and really would come down to the reasons for any war and if we could get any groups inside Iran to step up and take over leadership once the Puppet Masters are removed. This to me was a major failing of the Iraq War. Had we intervened when the Kurds rose up then perhaps a change of power could have been quicker with Iraq establishing itself as a soveign nation with its own elected govt. in quicker time then it is taking now.
It took Germany 4 years and Japan 7 years. Planing for Japan post-war started after Pearl Harbor attack. I read the presentation of Iraqi War in Pentogon had a single slide about post-war: TBD on it. Also Germany and Japan are very build society before WW2, that is nothing Iraq can compare too. The reason old Bush didn't go in Iraq in first war because the balance of power issue--US needs same one to balance Iran. As my own understanding, some of people in US (especially in Pentagon) are not happy with Saudis because all those financing they did to sponsor Bin Ladin, Taliban and Co. (Recently with the Crown Prince the new king, it may get uglier.) But for any solution against Saudi without creating chaos in oil supply, US needs to secure the #2 oil field in the world Iraq. But the problem is that with a Shia majority in the power, we actually stregnthen Iran's influence over the region. The result of Iraq War is not really benefit US (It did benifit Israli due to Hussein himself is a "love USA, but hate Israli" guy, and with the current problems, Iraqi cannot support any anti-Israli acts like it used to.) but more benifit both Israli and Iran. Meanwhile we are so dependant on the oil and starts to have trouble with most of exporters--Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Venusralla (sp?), etc...
Shaster, I think we are in agreement, maybe some of the specifics we don't see eye to eye on, but all in all I think we are both speaking from the same side of the coin. The Iraq situation is really one of poor after action planning for how to rebuild the Nation. The plan to handle the insurgency doesn't seem to have been given much thought. Where it applies to Iran, I have been led to believe that there is a strong feeling among the youth of Iran, those under 30, that the current govt. is not acceptable and that a warming even a normalizing of relations with the US is preferable. To me it is this group that the US should focus on getting in touch with and aiding them in their efforts to induce change. Not violent change, but a means to help them find their voice and organize into a viable political power. I do not support any effort to make them into a dictatorship or otherwise similar power, just one that can be a voice of the people to bring about a true democracy. I think though for that happen some force may be needed to oust some of those hardline fanatics. I would prefer that US troops not be needed for that task though.