Will the Real America Stand Up?
You can't lose for the winning. Nope. Let's see. You can't win for the losing. Oh, heck. Let's just go directly to the Guardian article. Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now, which argues -- you guessed it -- that Iran will collapse if only America does nothing to resist the Ayatollahs and leaves UN sanctions to work.
The honeymoon is over. Iran's controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has finally come unstuck. His popularity with the Iranian electorate - the subject of much incredulous analysis in 2005 - seems to be falling back at last, and the country's latest exercise in populism seems to be reaping the rewards of unfulfilled promises bestowed with little attention to economic realities.
Those realities have sharpened with the onset of UN sanctions. Ahmadinejad's casual dismissal of the sanctions has apparently earned him an unprecedented rebuke from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei - reflecting growing concerns among the political elite, including many conservatives, who are increasingly anxious at Iran's worsening international situation.
Articles like this call to mind the concept of duality. In plain words, "duality" how the same thing may seem different from various vantage points. To the Left, the same hated object America manifests itself in many equivalent forms. It is omnipotent. Everything in the world is due to its actions. It is impotent. It can't clear a street in Haifa, Baghdad, according to the New York Times. It is terribly vulnerable if it does anything, such as attempt to counter the Ayatollahs. But it is invincible if it does nothing but leave things to the UN, as the Guardian article eloquently argues. It continues:
There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less to do with the international environment and more with his own political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran. But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen at all.
They would be better off listening to a Zen master expound on the contradictions of the universe than attempt to understand articles in the Guardian.