of course the president (of either country) does not represent the views of the nation (ah the myth of democracy), and i appreciate you pointing this out, as themedia tries so hard to make iran a singular nut ( i'm seeing it show up in friends' emails now too), but there are a couple things that should be pointed out about America's new role in the world;
#1: america is not all powerful.
there will be no war with Iran, and anyone who followed this closely (the white house orchestrated diversion from iraq that came in the form of a threatened escalation with iran) knew that this was totally bogus. america has no appetite for war with a powerful nation like iran (thanks to US embargoes, iran has developed it's own military industrial complex aided by oil for technology with russia, china), and the reality of this was solidified by hezbollah aided with iranian technology repelling 40,000+ israelis aided with us technology (a kinda war in abstentia). Simply, america is no direct threat to iran in the form of a ground war (trying to divide the shia world by building a new shia state out of iraq is another thing however)...
#2 America has no clout globally anymore
america reaching out to any democracy movement anywhere in the world would only stand to deligitimize that movement to their brothers. after haiti, afghanistan, iraq (mainly iraq as the other two seem to have fallen off the radar), america has been clearly dethowned as a power for democracy (the emperor has no clothes cries the internet, and the world has seen it)...
what george bush and americas democratically treasonous bloodlust has done beside killing hundreds of thousands of mothers and children, has been to totally destroy any chance of credability for any hands of brotherhood eminating from washington.
accept the fact that america has no authority anymore, not militarily and certainly not diplomatically.
the boys in iran looking to develop a freer society are going to have to go it alone (or at least look for support somewhere other than here)...

andrew stromotich

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iranians actually have meaningful choices. Alternatives that aren't shams. We could use a little of that in the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who represents the reasonable people of Iran? Certainly not Ahmadinejad.

Russia and China are/were fundamentally different -- they consistently acted in their own (future) self interest. Ahmadinejad sees world-wide apocalypse as being in Iran's self interest. Not much of a basis for conversation.

The Iranians need to sort their own situation out for themselves. When they have an honorable representative to whom we can talk, then we should open a dialogue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at Europe pre WWII. How did it happen that so much of the continent wanted dictators at the same time? That's the danger of electing a W. As Foucault wrote, "Where there's power, there's resistance."

If Americans want a dictator, we will get them--everywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It does appear to be true that the Iranian Government, especially in it's more aggressive and conservative initiatives, does not represent the Iranian people just as, our American Government does not represent the interests and will of the people. However, Ahmadenijad is very different from George Bush in many ways. Bush is from a privileged background where power and money are brokered daily in a rarified atmosphere far from the ordinary sphere. He was always something of a slacker, even in that context. Ahmadenijad, on the other hand, came from a poor family and earned his stripes in the military resisting a brutal invasion of his country where 100s of thousands lost their lives. And, he was always smart, and always an achiever. Bush destroyed many economic services as Governor of Texas. and was voted in as an anti-govt candidate. Ahmadenijad built up the Public works in Tehran after the war and was voted in as a supporter of populist economic development. Bush is a figure head driven from below; Ahmadenijad holds a very visible position, but is not the ultimate authority in his country by virtue of the political structure there.
Both men come across as religious extremists, both make insensitive, inflammatory remarks about their opponent. However, Bush went to Harvard where they have Philosophy and Political Science classes, but Ahmadenijad trained in religious and military schools. Bush seems unaware that his talk is inflammatory, where Ahmadenijad appears to take a perverse satisfaction in raising critical issues in the most inflammatory tone possible.
It appears that Ahmadenijad will soon be superseded. This is happening because there is a power greater than himself in Iran (Khamenei) who has called an early election to give the people a chance to show their opinion of the status quo. This election not only is a popular referendum on Ahmadenijad, but is a assertion that there is indeed a higher power in Iran.
Here, where the system is the highest power, we too had an election. Our election proved to be an equally damning referendum on Mr. Bush and his supporters. However, Mr. Bush would have is day of glory, unsullied by the opinion of the people, and seems determined that, for the time being, he will listen to no voice other than the intimate circle of supporters he has represented from the beginning.
So, I am not sure what we can extrapolate from the similarity that is useful other than a very real sense, and my gut tells me it is true, that the Iranian people are more like us than different, if you take them as individuals. On the other hand, if you look at their differences, and consider "Which is more dangerous?", the answer might surprise you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Iranian people figured out they had a lunatic in charge a Heck of Lot Quicker then it has taken the bulk of Americans... What does that say about us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ahmadinejad is the president, not the Supreme Leader. Khamenei has issued a fatwa stating that Iran should not procure nuclear weapons- that it is a sin. But nevertheless, Ahmadinejad's bombastic statements are all we hear about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tough break you demented little shit! I hope they vote your sick fuckin' ass right out of office someday.

Wouldn't it be great if Bush and Ahmadinejad could simply have an old fashion, Western showdown where both are so "quick on the draw" that they kill one another and slump to the ground as the world cheers? If only . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]